Clinical and radiographic performance of late placed and early loaded dental implants with a conditioned hydrophilic surface in posterior mandible sites: A prospective case series with an 8.5‐ to 9.5‐year follow‐up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical outcomes by means of implant and prosthetic survival of late placed and early loaded implants with a hydrophilic, moderately rough surface for partially edentulous patients after a follow-up of 8.5 to 9.5 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective case series study involving 15 patients with single, late placed and early loaded implants in the posterior mandible was performed. Clinical and radiographical parameters, including biological and technical complications and patient satisfaction, were assessed. RESULTS: From an initial sample of 15 patients, 12 were included. A total of 16 implants were observed. After a mean follow-up of 9 years and 7 months (SD ± 3.8 months), implant success and survival rate were 100%. The prosthetic survival rate was 100%, and the prosthetic success rate was 93.8% since a major chipping was observed. No biological complications were observed, and the mean modified plaque index was 0.03 (SD ± 0.09) with a mean probing pocket depth of 2.95 mm (SD ± 0.09). A mean marginal bone level (MBL) of 0.04 mm (SD ± 0.88) and a mean VAS of 9.42 (SD ± 0.90) for patient satisfaction were recorded. CONCLUSION: Late placed and early loaded implants with a moderately rough endosseal surface are a reliable option for rehabilitating partially edentulous patients. An implant survival rate of 100% and a prosthodontic success rate of 93.8% were observed. Patient satisfaction scores were high and peri-implant hard and soft tissues remained healthy. The study findings should be carefully interpreted because of the small sample.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".