Evaluation of internal and external hexagon connections in immediately loaded full‐arch rehabilitations: A within‐person randomized split‐mouth controlled trial with a 3‐year follow‐up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although full-arch immediately loaded rehabilitations are widely used nowadays, little information is available on which implant/abutment connection is the most suitable in this type of treatment. PURPOSE: The aim of the present multicentric split-mouth clinical trial was to compare the clinical outcomes of two different implant-abutment connections applied in full-arch immediate loading rehabilitations: external hexagon connection (EHC) versus internal hexagon connection (IHC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty patients were rehabilitated with immediately loaded fixed full-arch rehabilitations. All the implants presented the same macro- and micro-topography but different implant/abutment connection. IHC were used in one randomly selected side of the jaw and EHC in the other side. Outcome measures were implant survival rate, peri-implant marginal bone loss (MBL), plaque index (PI), probing depth (PD), and bleeding on probing (BoP) evaluated at 3, 6, 12, and 36-month post-loading. Any technical and biological complication was recorded. Kaplan-Meier procedure and linear mixed model were used to perform statistical analysis. RESULTS: Forty-three EHC and 40 IHC implants were inserted. No patients dropped out and two implants failed in the first 6 months. The CSR was 97.7% for EHC and 97.5% for IHC implants. No statistically significant differences were found among the two groups for any of the parameters at any time point. At the 36-month follow-up visit a slight difference was found in MBL with a mean value of 1.7 mm in the EHC and of 1.9 mm in the IHC group (p = 0.355). No biologic complications were identified. Seven loosed abutment screws were identified in the entire follow-up period, two in the EHC, and five in the IHC group without a statistically significant difference (p = 0.394). CONCLUSIONS: After 36 months in function, both internal and external hexagon connections provided good clinical outcomes and were not associated with any significant difference.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".