Immediate loading protocols increase the risk of failure of implants placed by fully guided surgery in partially edentulous jaws: A randomized clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To compare the 1-year outcomes of immediate loading (IL) and delayed loading (DL) protocols for implants placed by fully guided surgery in partially edentulous jaws. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study included 72 patients who received implant surgery with either IL (93 implants, 36 patients) or DL (94 implants, 26 patients). A prefabricated provisional prosthesis was delivered immediately for the IL group (86 implants, 32 patients) with the exception of 4 subjects in whom an initial torque of >20 Ncm and an implant stability quotient of >65 were not achieved, while all DL-group implants were loaded after 3 months. The 1-year implant survival rate estimated by intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses, and the marginal bone loss (MBL) estimated by cone-beam computed tomography were statistically evaluated (p < 0.05). RESULTS: The survival rate in the DL group was 100% at both patient and implant levels. With only 26 subjects with 78 implants surviving in the IL group, the survival rates were 69.4% and 83.4% at the patient and implant levels, respectively, in the ITT analysis, and 78.1% and 90.2% in the PP analysis. All intergroup differences in survival rates were statistically significant (p < 0.01). MBL was less than 0.1 mm in both groups (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: IL for implants placed by fully guided surgery in the partially edentulous jaws increased the probability of failure compared to 3-month DL. Regardless of when loading occurred, marginal bone levels remained stable.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".