Early Function of Splinted Implants in Maxillas and Posterior Mandibles Using Brånemark System® Machined‐Surface Implants: An 18‐Month Prospective Clinical Multicenter Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are limited clinical data available for immediately or early loaded implants placed in posterior mandibles and maxillas. This is probably because bone density often is low in these areas, making it difficult to establish good initial implant stability. By eliminating countersinking and using slightly tapered implants (Brånemark System , Mk IV, Nobel Biocare AB, Gothenburg, Sweden), however, high initial implant stability might be achieved in these regions. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate the possibility of early application of implant function in oral locations where the bone density is often low, namely the maxilla and posterior mandible. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-one patients were included consecutively in the study, and 36 edentulous areas in maxillas and posterior mandibles were treated. All patients were nonsmokers in good general health. Bruxism and uncontrolled periodontal disease were exclusion criteria. One hundred twenty-four machined-surface implants were placed using an insertion torque of at least 40 Ncm. Temporary prostheses with narrow occlusal platforms, flat cusps, and light occlusal contacts were generally placed within 1 week and not exceeding 20 days from implant placement. RESULTS: Of the 124 implants installed, 4 failed, 1 in each of four patients, giving an overall survival rate of 96.8% after 18 months. Two implants failed in maxillas and two in mandibles. One implant in a maxilla and one in a mandible were lost in an early stage, and the other two were lost a few months after placement. The prostheses' survival was 100%. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that early implant function rehabilitation in maxillas and posterior mandibles is viable using the present clinical protocol. The results are comparable with those of conventional two-stage protocols.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".