MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4387729158 · doi:10.1111/cid.13288

A randomized, multicenter, double‐blinded parallel study to evaluate the safety and performance of zoledronate‐coated versus uncoated dental implants in partially edentulous patients

2023· article· en· W4387729158 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Reza Ardeshir Mokhtari, Morgan Olsson, Pär‐Olov Östman, Christer Dahlin

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineResonance frequency analysisImplant stability quotientDentistryImplantRandomized controlled trialMaxillaPremolarBisphosphonateAdverse effectDental implantMolarOsteoporosisSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate patient safety, implants survival and implant stability of the bisphosphonate (zoledronate) as a coating on dental implants in patients requiring oral rehabilitation in the posterior maxilla. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this multicenter, double-blind, randomized controlled study, 62 patients were randomized to receive either zoledronate-coated or uncoated control implants in the premolar or molar area of the maxilla, using a one stage-protocol. Due to dropouts and exclusion 49 patients completed the study. The implants were examined by resonance frequency analysis (RFA) using an implant stability quotient (ISQ) scale at the time of insertion, and at 8 weeks, and after 12 weeks prior to prosthetic restoration. Radiographs were taken prior to surgery, directly after insertion, and during the follow-up at 12 weeks, 6 months, and 1 year to analyze changes in marginal bone levels (MBL). Finally, all complications and adverse effects (AE) were observed and recorded. RESULTS: Out of 62 included patients, 49 patients completed the study. No AE were reported by patients receiving zoledronate-coated implants. There was no statistically significant difference between the zoledronate-coated or uncoated implant groups when comparing ISQ levels at insertion and after 12 weeks of healing, the mean of the ISQ values demonstrated a change of 4.64 (95% confidence interval: 15.46; 5.79, p = 0.43) between the two groups. At 8- and 12-weeks, ISQ values remained stable (range 62-70). Radiographic analysis showed no statistically significant difference in MBL between the two implant groups after 1 year of loading neither at the mesial side (p = 0.99) or the distal side (p = 0.97). MBL for coated implants were 0.57 mm at the mesial side and 0.46 mm at the distal side. For the uncoated implants, MBL was 0.48 mm at the mesial side and 0.47 mm at the distal side. CONCLUSION: The zoledronate-coated dental implants are safe to use in a one-stage surgery protocol in patients requiring oral rehabilitation in the posterior maxilla, after 1 year of loading. There were no statically significant changes in implant stability and marginal bone levels measured by intraoral radiographs in comparison to uncoated control implants.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.179
GPT teacher head0.496
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research→Same topicBone health and treatments→French-language works237,207→