Long‐term clinical performance of short 6‐mm implants supporting single crowns in the posterior region: A 10‐year cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Long-term clinical success of non-splinted, posterior, and short implants still is unclear. This prospective cohort study reports the 10-year follow-up of 6-mm implants supporting single crowns in the posterior region, and patient-reported outcomes. METHODS: Baseline sample comprised 20 patients treated with 46 screw-retained crowns supported by 6-mm implants with moderately rough implant surface. Participants were recalled for a 10-year clinical follow-up to assess survival rates, biologic and mechanic conditions, quality of life (OHIP-14), and treatment satisfaction. Data were collected with clinical-radiographic exams and analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics. RESULTS: Fourteen patients with 35 implant-crown units were examined after 127.6 ± 11.8 months. For the entire cohort period, 7/46 implants were lost (survival estimate: 77.7% at 133 months), and mechanic complications occurred in 14/46 units (survival estimate: 66.4% at 116 months). In the Cox models, "maximum occlusal force" had a significant effect for implant loss (p = 0.038) and for prosthetic screw loosening (p = 0.038); "arch" and "bruxism" were not significant. Peri-implant bone loss was 0.4 ± 0.6 mm at 10 years. For peri-implant bone level, "crown-to-implant ratio" (p < 0.001) and "time" (p = 0.001) were significant. Bone levels differed from baseline to 12, 48, and 120 months. Satisfaction VAS was 94.0 ± 7.9 mm and OHIP-14 was 2.3 ± 2.2. CONCLUSION: Single screw-retained crowns supported by 6-mm implants have an acceptable long-term clinical performance, with stable peri-implant bone levels after 10 years of function.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".