Effect of one‐time placement of the definitive abutment versus multiple healing abutment disconnections and reconnections during the prosthetic phase on radiographic and clinical outcomes: A 12‐month randomized clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this investigation was to evaluate the effect on clinical and radiological outcomes of the one-abutment, one-time protocol (test) versus placing the definitive abutment on the day of functional loading after having disconnected and connected three times the healing abutment during the prosthetic phase (control). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty patients with 80 implants were randomly allocated to either the test or the control group. Changes in the radiographic marginal bone levels (MBLs), clinical outcomes, prosthetic-related outcomes, and patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) were assessed and compared 6 and 12 months after functional loading. RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients with 74 implants were followed at 12 months. A statistically significant bone remodeling was observed in both groups following implant placement. MBLs were significantly greater in the control group at the 6- (-0.13 mm vs. -0.61 mm) and 12-month visits (-0.01 mm vs. -0.53 mm). Bone loss was significantly greater in the control group from surgery to 6 and 12 months and from loading to 6 and 12 months. The abutment height was significantly greater in the test group, however, there were no significant differences in the restorative angle. Similarly, there were no statistically significant differences between groups for the measured clinical variables (probing depth, plaque, and bleeding index) and PROMs. CONCLUSIONS: Disconnecting and reconnecting the healing abutment was associated with significantly higher bone loss after 12 months, as compared to the placement of the definitive abutment at implant installation.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".