Assessment of bone density and stability with immediately loaded dental implants with the All‐on‐Four technique in free vascularized fibular grafts used for mandibular reconstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Following free fibula flaps (FFF) reconstruction of mandibular defects the patients need an early dental rehabilitation to regain their masticatory function and enhance their feeding and nutrition. METHODS: This study included 10 patients, with mandibular defects previously reconstructed with FFF that span the area between the two mandibular angles. They received a full arch fixed restoration supported by four implants using a pilot drilling guide to perform a flapless operation. The stability of the placed dental implants was assessed along with the changes in bone density. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant increase in stability after 3 and 6 months, and there was a decrease in density after 6 months. The patient satisfaction improved over the follow-up period. CONCLUSION: The All-on-Four technique is reliable and economic for early functional rehabilitation of resected jaws reconstructed with FFF; however, further studies are needed to investigate the changes in fibula bone density over time and with function.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".