The influence of new immediate tissue level abutment on crestal bone stability of subcrestally placed implants: A 1‐year randomized controlled clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The relation between implant abutment disconnection (AD) and increased crestal bone loss is still debated. PURPOSE: To compare bone changes below implant-abutment junction of subcrestally placed implants between: (1) implant level restorations, that underwent four ADs and (2) implants with immediate tissue level abutment with no AD, 1 month (T2) and 1-year (T3) after final restoration delivery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-four patients received 64 bone level implants with platform-switching and conical connection in edentulous sites of posterior mandible and maxilla. All implants were placed 1.5 mm subcrestally and distributed among: (1) control group, that received a regular healing abutment and (2) test group with immediate tissue level (ITL) abutment, which was torqued to implants during surgery, transforming bone level implant to tissue level type. After 2-3 months of healing and a 1-month temporization, final zirconia-based screw-retained crowns were delivered to both groups. Crestal bone levels were calculated after final crown delivery (T2); after 1-year follow-up (T3) and compared using Mann-Whitney U test (p ≤ .05). RESULTS: Early bone loss of the test and control groups was 0.14 ± 0.27 mm and 0.64 ± 0.64 mm, respectively; the 0.5 mm difference was statistically significant (p = .0001). Late bone loss was 0.06 ± 0.16 mm and 0.21 ± 0.56 mm for the test and control group, respectively; the 0.15 mm difference between the groups was no more statistically significant (p = .22). Both groups displayed bone gain, 0.08 and 0.43 mm, respectively, and the overall crestal bone loss was reduced. CONCLUSIONS: Immediate tissue level abutments can significantly reduce early bone loss when measured 1 month after final prosthesis delivery, however, after 1-year follow-up, difference between the groups was no more statistically significant.
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 | 0.004 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".