Impact of labially inclined implant axes on immediate implant placement and provisionalization in anterior maxilla: A prospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether a labially inclined implant axis compromises the clinical outcomes of immediate implant placement and provisionalization (IIPP) in the anterior maxilla. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with unsalvageable central or lateral maxillary incisors were enrolled. IIPP with simultaneous connective tissue graft (CTG) was performed in all participants. In the control group, the alveolar ridge had a long axis aligned with the tooth, which ensured that the immediate implant was aimed at the incisor edge or the cingulum of future restoration. The test group had a large angle between the axes of the ridge and tooth. To avoid bone fenestration, the implants were placed labially inclined and emerged from the labial side of future restoration. Intra-oral scanning and cone-beam computed tomography were performed to record soft and hard tissue profiles at baseline and 1 year later. Soft tissue stability, bone remodeling, and pink esthetic score (PES) were evaluated and compared between two groups. RESULTS: Thirty-nine participants (19 tests and 20 controls) completed the study. At 1-year post-surgery, the mid-facial gingival margin migrations were 0.85 ± 0.37 mm (test) and 0.81 ± 0.33 mm (control), without significant differences. No differences were identified in buccal profile alteration, linear ridge reduction, buccal bone thickness, or PES scores. The test group demonstrated thinner buccal soft tissue at the crestal level than the control group. CONCLUSIONS: When large tooth-ridge angulation presented, labially inclined implant, avoiding buccal ridge fenestration in IIPP with CTG, did not compromise the clinical outcome in short term.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".