Immediate versus early loading of immediately placed bone‐level tapered dental implants with hydrophilic surface in full arch maxillary rehabilitation: A pilot randomized clinical trial with 2‐year follow‐up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to compare implant stabilities between the immediate and early loaded, immediately placed bone-level tapered dental implants in the maxilla and to evaluate marginal bone loss (MBL), oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL), and patient satisfaction at a 2-year follow-up. A pilot, prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial was conducted on 24 maxillary failing dentition patients. The bone-level tapered implants of 12 patients were immediately loaded with temporary restorations, while the other 12 patients did not receive any kind of temporization. Implant-supported screw-retained complete porcelain-fused-to-metal prostheses were delivered to all patients in the seventh postoperative week. The insertion torque values of implants assigned to the immediate and early loading groups were 33.0 ± 4.87 and 29.26 ± 8.31 Ncm, respectively. The dynamics of implant stability changes from implant placement up to a 2-year follow-up were similar for both groups (Penguin®, p = 0.268; Ostell®, p = 0.552), while the MBL was at submillimeter level. The cumulative implant survival rate was 91.80% for immediately loaded implants and 97.22% for early loaded implants, without significant difference (p = 0.162). The total score on the Oral Health Impact Profile questionnaire significantly decreased over time in both groups, indicating improvement in OHRQoL (p < 0.001), and the high level of patient satisfaction remained after 2 years of function regardless of a loading protocol. Both loading protocols, immediate and early, of six immediately placed bone-level tapered dental implants are an adequate treatment choice for fixed rehabilitation of the maxillary failing dentition.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".