Comparison of nonself‐tapping tapered implant and self‐tapping hybrid implant in terms of implant stability at initial and second fixation: A prospective randomized clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Various features are provided in dental implants to improve initial fixation. PURPOSE: To compare the implant stability of the nonself-tapping tapered implant and self-tapping hybrid implant over a 3-month healing period. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A randomized controlled trial was conducted. Patients were randomly divided into tapered and self-tapping groups. Patients in the tapered group received NobelReplace Tapered (Nobel Biocare, Sweden) implants, while those in the self-tapping group received NobelSpeedy (Nobel Biocare, Sweden) implants. Implant stability was measured by resonance frequency analysis at surgery and 3 months following implant insertion. Data were analyzed using an independent t-test. RESULTS: Forty-three patients (tapered group: 21, self-tapping group: 22) received a total of 88 implants. Initial stability in the tapered group was significantly higher (mean: 60.14, SD: 12.40) than that in the self-tapping group (mean: 54.72, SD: 7.92). Implant stability significantly increased 3 months after implantation in the tapered group (mean: 66.61, SD: 9.00) and self-tapping group (mean: 64.01, SD: 5.78). No significant intergroup difference in implant stability was noted 3 months after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: The tapered shape affected initial fixation more than the self-tapping function. However, during the second fixation, both implants showed good stability, and the difference disappeared.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".