Monolithic zirconia single tooth implant‐supported restorations with <scp>CAD</scp>/<scp>CAM</scp> titanium abutments in the posterior region: A 1‐year prospective case series study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the clinical, radiographic, and patient-reported outcome measures, including the success of screw-retained monolithic zirconia implant-supported restorations with CAD/CAM titanium abutments in the posterior region during a 1-year follow-up. METHODS: In a prospective case series, 50 molar sites in the posterior region of 46 patients with a minimum age of 18 years and sufficient bone volume and anatomical conditions for placing an implant (≥8 mm) and an anatomical restoration were included. Parallel-walled implants with a conical connection were inserted in a two-stage surgical procedure. Implant uncovering and healing abutment placement occurred 12 weeks after insertion. Two weeks after mucosa healing, a screw-retained monolithic zirconia restoration with a CAD/CAM titanium abutment was placed. Clinical, radiographic, and patient-reported outcome measures were collected at baseline before implant placement and then during the 1 month and 1 year follow-ups. RESULTS: At the 1 year follow-up, 49 restorations could be evaluated. The plaque accumulation, presence of calculus, bleeding tendency and peri-implant inflammation indices were low, representing healthy peri-implant conditions. The mean marginal bone level change between the 1 month and the 1 year follow-up was -0.17 ± 0.46 mm. The mean patient satisfaction was high. The restoration success was, according to the modified USPHS criteria, 95.9%. CONCLUSION: Monolithic zirconia implant-supported restorations with CAD/CAM titanium abutments have very good clinical, radiographic and patient-reported outcomes after 1 year in 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".