Esthetic and clinical outcomes after immediate placement and restoration: Comparison of two implant systems in the anterior maxilla—A cross‐sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To assess the esthetic and clinical performance of a novel self-tapping implant system for single-tooth restorations in the esthetic zone after immediate placement and provisionalization. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This cross-sectional study included 52 patients contributing a total of 52 immediately placed and restored implants with ≥12 months after functional loading, comparing two different implant systems: Straumann® BLX (Institut Straumann AG, Basel, Switzerland; 25 patients) and Ankylos® (Dentsply Sirona, Hanau, Germany; 27 patients). As the primary outcome measure, peri-implant tissue esthetics were assessed by means of pink esthetics score (PES) rated by three independent clinicians. Moreover, as secondary outcome measures, the peri-implant tissue health was assessed by means of bleeding on probing, probing depth, and suppuration. Apart from that, the modified plaque index, keratinized mucosa width, and the presence of mucosal recessions were also assessed. When clinical signs suggested the possibility of peri-implantitis, radiographs were indicated to assess progressive bone loss. RESULTS: The mean PES ratings were 12.10 ± 1.10 for Ankylos versus 11.2 ± 1.86 for BLX, both achieving good esthetic results without significant differences (p = 0.143). There were no differences among most clinical parameters (plaque, bleeding on probing, probing depth, peri-implant mucosal recession), although peri-implant mucositis was present in one-third of the cases. The inter-rater agreement on esthetics was not significant (p < 0.250). CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of the present study, it was concluded that the use of either BLX or Ankylos implant systems was associated to comparable peri-implant health and good pink esthetic outcomes during immediate implantation and restoration protocols, for at least 12 months.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".