MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4289766579 · doi:10.1111/cid.13125

Survival and complications of implant‐supported cantilever fixed dental prostheses with zirconia and metal frameworks: A retrospective cohort study

2022· article· en· W4289766579 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Laura Horsch, Dorothea Kronsteiner, Peter Rammelsberg

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental materials and restorations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProportional hazards modelDentistryImplantConfidence intervalRetrospective cohort studyDental prosthesisSurvival analysisCohortSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Current evidence about long‐term survival of all‐ceramic implant‐supported cantilever fixed dental prostheses (cFDP) is limited. Purpose To evaluate the survival and complication rates of all‐ceramic and metal–ceramic implant‐supported cFDPs located in anterior and posterior sites, under consideration of risk factors. Methods of study The retrospective analysis compared an experimental group (75 implant‐supported cFDPs among 48 patients [mean age 60.47 ± 9.25 years; 21 men]; mean observation period 3.56 years) with a control group (300 implant‐supported non‐cantilever FDPs [ncFDP] among 241 patients [mean age 62.85 ± 10.72 years; 109 men]; mean observation period 7.25 years). Kaplan–Meier estimates were used to describe the long‐term survival and success of both groups. Log‐rank tests were used for group comparisons. Mixed‐effects Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to examine the effects of restoration‐ and site‐specific risk factors. A random intercept was included in the models to take multiple FDPs per patient into account. Results Five‐year cumulative survival until loss of restoration was 97.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.93–1.00) for cFDPs and 97.0% (95% CI 0.95–0.99) for ncFDPs. Ten‐year survival was 93.7% (95% CI 0.86–1.00) for cFDPs and 92.8% (95% CI 0.87–0.98) for ncFDPs, no difference between the survival curves of these groups was observed. Success differed between cFDPs and ncFDPs (pLog = 0.002), zirconia and metal frameworks (pLog < 0.001), and provisional and definitive cements (pLog = 0.025). The effects of the variables “framework material” and “attachment method” were confirmed in a mixed‐effects Cox regression model. Loss of retention was the predominant complication for both cFDPs and ncFDPs and usually affected provisionally cemented FDPs. Conclusions cFDPs do not differ from ncFDPs with regard to long‐term failure, whereas additional complications were higher for cFDPs. Fewer complications were observed for zirconia frameworks without occlusal veneers and definitive cemented FDPs. Clinical trial registration: the trial has no registration number because it commenced before January 31, 2017.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.071
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.342 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related ResearchSame topicDental materials and restorationsFrench-language works237,207