A retrospective study on ultra‐wide diameter dental implants for immediate molar replacement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Although immediate implant placement for single rooted teeth is well documented, the prognosis of ultra‐wide implants in molar sockets lacks data. Purpose To evaluate the outcome of ultra‐wide implants, immediately placed in molar sockets. Materials and Methods Patients treated with immediate ultra‐wide diameter implants that have been in function for at least 40 months, were invited for a clinical evaluation. A radiograph was taken to measure marginal bone loss. Probing depths as well as plaque and bleeding scores were recorded at the implant and contralateral tooth. Crown and soft tissue dimensions were measured, and patients filled out an OHIP‐14 questionnaire. Results Eighty‐five out of 230 patients (37%) were evaluated. Twenty‐eight implants received a bone graft to fill the residual space. Average bone loss was 0.19 mm after a mean follow‐up of 67 months, with no significant changes over time (P = 0.170). There was no significant difference in bone loss between the maxilla and mandible (P = 0.797), male or female (P = 0.128), smoking and nonsmoking (P = 0.219), grafted and nongrafted sites (P = 0.098), or the different bio‐types (P = 0.404). The distal papillae were significantly higher if a contact point was present (P = 0.002). Plaque was more frequent at the contralateral tooth (P < 0.001), but more bleeding on probing was observed around the implants (P = 0.021). Overall, 63.5% of the patients experienced no problems at all. Conclusion Ultra‐wide diameter implants for immediate molar replacement demonstrate little bone loss and stable soft tissue conditions over a 4 to 7‐year period.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".