Retrospective clinical evaluation of 2‐ to 6‐unit implant‐supported fixed partial dentures: Mean follow‐up of 9 years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Implant-supported fixed partial dentures (ISFPDs) are one of the most common options to rehabilitate partially edentulous patients. PURPOSE: To assess the clinical outcomes of ISFPDs. METHODS: This retrospective study included all patients treated with ISFPDs with 2 to 6 prosthetic units at one specialist clinic. Implant/prosthesis failure and technical complications were the outcomes analyzed. RESULTS: Six hundred and forty-two patients with 876 ISFPDs (2241 implants) were included, followed up for 108.0 ± 76.2 months. Eighty-eight prostheses and 112 implants (26 before, 86 after prosthesis installation) failed. The estimated CSR of ISFPDs at 30 years was 72.7%. Smokers presented lower implant survival than nonsmokers. Two hundred and ninety-nine ISFPDs (33.2%) presented technical complications. Bruxism was a factor to exert a higher risk of screw and implant fracture, and ceramic chipping. ISFPDs with cantilever presented higher risk of failure, and screw loosening/fracture. Prostheses supported by implants with internal abutment connection or with two pontics had higher risk of presenting ceramic chipping. Extension of the prosthesis did not seem to exert influence on prosthesis failure/complications. CONCLUSIONS: ISFPDs presented good long-term prognosis. Implant failure was the main reason for ISFPD failure. The results suggest that bruxism and the presence of cantilever may contribute to the increased rate of mechanical complications and prosthesis failure.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".