Bibliographic record
Abstract
English summary Implant history 10–15. Previously used oral implants did not achieve academic recognition due to poor clinical results and absence of proper clinical reporting. This unfortunate situation changed when a Swedish physician, Brånemark, discovered osseointegration; a technique establishing a bony interface around oral implants, previously regarded as impossible. Whereas the actual discovery was made around 1961, the first patient was operated in 1965. Early patients treated with osseointegrated oral implants were in many cases those with severe bone resorption who were unable to have ordinary dentures placed in a stable manner. Initial clinical results were a bit discouraging, hence the new treatment techniques were not at all accepted by Swedish dentistry, instead a severe academic struggle followed that lasted for about 10 years. Clinical results had improved in the meantime and, in 1977, the Swedish Board of Welfare after having consulted with three independent Swedish odontological academicians, decided that osseointegration was an acceptable form of treatment. This was the first time ever that an implant treatment procedure received such a recognition. Initial training of clinicians were mainly concentrated to Scandinavian colleagues, although the first British team was trained already in 1981. George Zarb, a prosthodontic professor of the University of Toronto in Canada, had joined the Gothenburg team in 1978 and , thereafter, started a clinical replica study in Toronto. Zarb was behind the seminal conference held in Toronto in 1982, where a great number of particularly invited, mainly North American dental scholars, despite an initial skepticism, accepted osseointegration treatment by the end of the conference. This had a substantial impact on clinical dentistry since the new treatment made it possible to use fixed constructions retained by implants, today a widely used treatment concept all over the world.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.489 | 0.463 |
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".