MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3015330031 · doi:10.1111/cid.12908

Primary stability of narrow‐diameter dental implants with a multiple condensing thread design placed in bone with and without osteotomes: An in vitro study

2020· article· en· W3015330031 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Georgios E. Romanos, Jessica Lau, Rafael Delgado-Ruíz, Fawad Javed

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThread (computing)DentistryMaterials scienceOrthodonticsMedicineEngineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The authors hypothesized that there is no difference in the primary stability (PS) of multiple condensing thread design (MCTD) implants placed in simulated type-IV bone with and without using osteotomes. PURPOSE: This in vitro study assessed the PS of narrow-diameter dental implants with MCTD placed in simulated soft (type-IV) bone with and without using osteotomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty MCT-designed implants (diameter: 3.0 mm; length: 11.5 mm) were placed using 800 rpm drilling speed in cellular rigid polyurethane foam bone-blocks that simulated type-IV bone. Prior to placement, the implants were divided into three groups (20 implants per group) depending upon the protocol used for osteotomy preparation-Group-1: Conventional drilling (CD); Group-2: CD followed by osseous condensation using a chisel-shaped tapered osteotome with maximum diameter of 3 mm; and Group-3: CD followed by osseous condensation using a cylindrical osteotome with maximum diameter of 3 mm. Abutments were connected to all implants and PS was recorded using resonance frequency analysis (RFA) and the periotest (PTV). Group comparisons were performed using analysis and Bonferroni post-hoc adjustment tests. Level of significance was set at P < .05. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in the RFA values for the MCT-designed implants placed in groups 1, 2, and 3 (59.85 ± 0.72, 59.67 ± 0.76 and 59.42 ± 0.92, respectively). There was no statistically significant difference in the PTV values for MCT-designed implants in groups 1, 2, and 3 (1.655 ± 0.82, 1.405 ± 0.57, and 1.078 ± 0.63, respectively). CONCLUSION: The MCTD implants with narrow diameters have a high PS in artificial soft bone in vitro. Due to the condensation effect of the thread design, there is no need for additional condensation of the peri-osteotomy bone in order to improve implant stability.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.186
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.250 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research→Same topicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→