Full‐zirconia single‐tooth molar implant‐supported restorations with angulated screw channel abutments: A 1‐year prospective case series study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Implant-supported restorations in the posterior region are subjected to various complications that could be prevented by changing either the design or the material. PURPOSE: The aim of this prospective case series study was to evaluate full-zirconia implant-supported restorations with angulated screw channel abutments in the molar region of the maxilla and mandible and their effect on hard and soft peri-implant tissues, during a 1-year follow-up period. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty consecutive patients with a single missing molar, sufficient bone height, and implant site free of infection were included. Each patient was to receive a parallel-walled implant with conical connection according to a two-staged surgical protocol. After 3 months, a full-contour screw-retained zirconia restoration with angulated screw channel abutment was provided. Clinical and radiographic examinations were performed 1 and 12 months after placement of the restoration. Patients' satisfaction was scored prior to treatment and after 12 months with the restoration in function. Primary outcome measure was success of the restoration. RESULTS: All patients could be evaluated after 12 months. Success of the restorations was 100%. From loading to the 12-month follow-up, the mean marginal bone loss was 0.16 mm (SD: 0.26). Mean scores for plaque, calculus, peri-implant mucosa, bleeding, and pocket probing depth were low, depicting healthy peri-implant conditions. Patients' satisfaction was high and had improved after treatment. CONCLUSION: Full-contour zirconia implant-supported restorations with angulated screw channel abutments in the molar region have an excellent clinical performance after 1 year of function.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".