Clinical, radiographic, and immunological evaluation of angulated screw‐retained and cemented single‐implant crowns in the esthetic region: A 1‐year randomized controlled clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Screw-retained implant crowns are considered more biologically compatible than cemented crowns due to the absence of excess cement. However, traditional screw-retained implant crowns are not viable when the access hole of the screw channel would need to be located in an esthetic area, which would compromise the esthetic outcome of the treatment. PURPOSE: To evaluate the clinical, radiographic, and immunological outcomes of angulated screw-retained and cemented single-implant crowns in the esthetic region. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was a single-center, open-label, randomized controlled clinical trial. Eligible patients were randomly placed in two groups: angulated screw-retained group (AG) and cemented group (CG). Implant survival rate, bleeding on probing rate (BOP%), probing depth (PD), modified plaque index (mPI), marginal bone loss (MBL), concentrations of pro-inflammatory cytokines (TNF-α, IL-6) in peri-implant crevicular fluid (PICF), mechanical complications, and pink esthetic score/white esthetic score (PES/WES) were evaluated. RESULTS: Fifty-six patients (AG: 29, CG: 27) attended the 1-year examination. The drop-out rate was 6.67%. No implant failure was found in both groups during the observation period. BOP% was significantly lower in the AG than that in the CG (mean, 21.84% ± 19.97% vs. 37.04% ± 26.28%, p = 0.018). The concentration of TNF-α in PICF was significantly higher in the AG than that in the CG (median, 13.54 vs. 4.62, p = 0.019). No significant difference of PD, mPI, MBL, IL-6, or mechanical complication rates was found between the two groups. Mean scores for PES/WES were 21.71 and 21.64 in the AG and CG, respectively. CONCLUSION: Based on the present results, both treatment options showed acceptable clinical outcomes in the short term. Angulated screw-retained crowns might benefit the peri-implant soft tissue. However, studies with long-term follow-up are needed to confirm whether the higher concentration of TNF-α will compromise the long-term outcomes of treatment.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 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 | 0.002 |
| 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".