Immediate flapless full‐arch rehabilitation of edentulous jaws on 4 or 6 implants according to the prosthetic‐driven planning and guided implant surgery: A retrospective study on clinical and radiographic outcomes up to 10 years of follow‐up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: to retrospectively evaluate clinical and radiographic outcomes of immediate, flapless full-arch prostheses, supported by 4/6 implants according to prosthetic-driven planning and guided surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study involved 28 edentulous patients (20 female/8 males; average age 67.75 ± 8.627 years), 32 prostheses (17 all-on-4/15 all-on-6) and 164 implants. The Implants survival, prostheses success/survival, peri-implant marginal bone loss, incidence of biological and prosthetic complications were evaluated. Multiple linear regression analysis was performed to analyze the influence of implant and patient characteristics on marginal bone loss. RESULTS: Cumulative implant survival rate was 89.7% for all-on-four (seven failures) and 99.0% for all-on-six (one failure) after a mean follow-up of 6.46 ± 2.236 years (range 1-10 years). Cumulative prosthesis success rate was 51.5% (58.8% for all-on-four/ 43.8% for all-on-six). Prosthesis survival rate was 88.2% for all-on-four. No failure was registered in all-on-six. Mean value of marginal bone loss was 1.38 ± 0.1.28 mm at 5-year and 2.09 ± 0.56 mm at 10-year follow-up. No difference was found in the mean value of marginal bone resorption between all-on-four (1.56 ± 1.61 mm) and all-on-six (1.20 ± 0.85 mm) (p = 0.104) and between tilted (1.22 ± 1.29 mm) and axial implants (1.44 ± 1.27 mm) (p = 0.385) after 5-year follow-up. The incidence of biological complications was 1.0% in all-on-six (one mucositis) and 10.3% in all-on-four (two peri-implantitis). Prosthetic complications affected teeth of final rehabilitations with 3 detachments, 10 chippings or fractures, and 3 severe occlusal wears. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results and within the limitations of the present study, the implant-supported hybrid prosthesis according to prosthetic-driven planning and guided surgery showed to be an efficient, safe, and effective approach to rehabilitate edentulous jaws.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".