Clinical, radiographic, and aesthetic outcomes at two narrow‐diameter implants to replace congenital missing maxillary lateral incisors: A 3‐year prospective, clinical study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: To present the 3-year clinical, radiographic, and aesthetic outcomes in patients with congenitally missing lateral incisors rehabilitated with two narrow-diameter implants (NDIs). METHODS: The original population consisted of 100 patients rehabilitated with a cement-retained bi-layered zirconia single-unit crown supported by either a Ø2.9 mm (Test) or a Ø3.3 mm (Control) NDI (n = 50). At the 1- and 3-year follow-up (T2, T3), implant survival rate, crestal bone level (CBL) changes, biological, and technical complications were recorded, while the assessment of the aesthetic outcomes was performed using the Copenhagen Index Score. RESULTS: Seventy-four patients Ø2.9 mm (n = 39) or Ø3.3 mm (n = 35) reached T3, as 24 patients were lost to follow-up and 1 implant (Ø3.3 mm) was removed. Throughout the observation period, minimal CBL changes (i.e., <1 mm) were detected between groups. Despite the positive aesthetic scores recorded (i.e., 1-2), at T3 20% of patients rehabilitated with a Ø3.3 mm versus 2.6% of patients Ø2.9 mm displayed an alveolar process deficiency (Score 3). No additional technical and/or mechanical complications were recorded between T2 and T3. Tooth vitality was maintained in all neighboring teeth. Peri-implant probing depths and plaque scores remained low in both groups (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: The use of 2.9 or 3.3 diameter implants showed comparable favorable mid-term results in terms of survival rate, CBL, and aesthetic outcomes. Hence, clinicians should rely on the use of such NDIs when replacing maxillary lateral incisors.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".