Impact of fully or partially guided surgery on the position of single implants immediately placed in maxillary incisor sockets: A randomized controlled clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the deviation of the implant position after placement in single maxillary incisor post-extraction sockets between fully and partially guided surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-four patients with a failing maxillary incisor were randomly allocated into two groups: the partially guided surgery (PGS, n = 12) group or fully guided surgery (FGS, n = 12) group. Clinical analyses, intra-oral scans, and computed tomography scans (CT) were initially performed to define the virtual positioning of the implants and fabrication of the 3D printed surgical guides. A narrow, 3.5 × 16 mm implant was placed in each socket. In this moment, the insertion torque (IT) was assessed and resonance frequency analysis (RFA) was performed. All patients received an immediate provisional without occlusal contacts. Another CT scan was performed after the procedures to compare the implant position with the virtually planned position. RESULTS: Significant deviations occurred at the implant apex, according to the global and facial-palatal analyses, in comparison to its cervical position. The PGS group also presented a larger deviation in the MD position. No statistical differences between the groups were detected, however, there was a tendency of lower angular deviation in the PGS group. CONCLUSIONS: While there was a slight deviation from the virtually planned position of the implant to the actual position and a tendency of lower angular deviation in the PGS group, there was no difference among groups regarding its position and primary stability. (UNT: 1111-1214-2812 - http://www.ensaiosclinicos.gov.br/rg/RBR-4tmcrk/).
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
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".