Mandibular bone characteristics, drilling protocols, and final insertion torque for titanium‐zirconium mini‐implants for overdentures: A cross‐sectional analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the final insertion torque values achieved using site-specific drilling protocols for a novel mini implant system for removable complete overdentures. Anatomical and technical factors influencing final insertion torque were recorded and analyzed. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Participants were randomized to two surgical protocol groups (flapped or flapless) and all received four mini implants (Straumann® mini implant system; Straumann AG) in the anterior mandible, using a 1.6 mm needle drill and a 2.2 mm pilot drill for the implant bed site preparation. The final insertion torque was recorded as the main outcome variable during surgery. Bone type, radiographical bone density, ridge form, implant length, and the drilling protocol were considered as independent variables. Descriptive statistics, generalized estimating equations (GEE) regression, and heatmap charts were used for data analyses. RESULTS: A total of 296 mini implants were placed in 74 patients (mean age = 64.1 ± 8.0; 64.9% female) using flapless (n = 37) or flapped (n = 37) surgeries. Mean final insertion torque was 55.8 ± 18.4 Ncm (10.5% > 35 Ncm, 48.9% between 35 and 65 Ncm, and 40.6% > 65 Ncm). The needle drill was used in only 43.9% of the implant bed sites. Higher final torque values were observed for higher bone densities (bone type I > II > III, and D1-D2 > D3-D4), highly resorbed ridge forms (5-6 > 3-4), flapped surgeries, and male patients. However, regression models showed that the likelihood of achieving optimal insertion torque (≥35 and ≤65 Ncm) was higher for females (OR = 2.14; 95%CI = 1.14-4.01; p = 0.018), ridge forms 3-4 (OR = 2.87; 95%CI = 1.05-7.85; p = 0.040), and flapless surgeries (OR = 1.96; 95%CI = 1.09-3.51; p = 0.024). CONCLUSIONS: Sufficient primary stability for immediate loading was achieved for the majority of the mini implants placed. Surgical implant bed preparation should be site-specific to achieve optimal primary stability for immediate loading while avoiding excessive insertion torque.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".