Clinical efficacy of a two‐piece abutment conforming to the concept of one abutment one time in the posterior region: A clinical pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of a two-piece abutment workflow on enhancing the stability of the alveolar bone and gingiva surrounding the dental implant, and to determine the level of patient satisfaction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 48 patients with dentition defect in the posterior region were included and divided into two groups: the two-piece abutment workflow (TAW) and the sealing screw with submerged healing workflow (SHW). Marginal bone level (MBL), soft tissue indicators, oral hygiene indicators, and patient satisfaction were assessed and recorded partially at 0, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. The primary outcome was the change of MBL in different time periods. A generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) was used to take into account the correlated nature of the data, and adjust for potential confounding factors within inter-group differences. RESULTS: The survival rate of implants and prosthesis reached 100% at 12-month follow-up, with an average decrease of 0.25 mm (SD 0.23 mm) of MBL in the TAW group and 0.48 mm (SD 0.45 mm) in the SHW group. The change of MBL in the TAW group (0.15 ± 0.31 mm) was significantly lower than the SHW group (0.41 ± 0.41 mm) through the analysis of GLMM within 6 months, while no significance was found in 12 months. Moreover, less gingival pain and oppression during prosthesis loading, and less time consumption overall duration were showed in the TAW group through Visual Analogue Scale (VAS, p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Within a 6-month period, the two-piece abutment workflow showed superior efficacy in preserving the integrity of the marginal bone level. Furthermore, it streamlined treatment procedures and mitigated discomfort, hence increasing patient satisfaction.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".