Trans‐crestal dental implants in the rehabilitation of a severely atrophic maxilla: A retrospective case series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the mid-term clinical and radiographic results of immediate fixed full-arch prosthesis supported by two anterior axial and two posterior trans-crestally placed tilted implants in patients with severely atrophic posterior maxilla. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with posterior maxillary ridge less than 4 mm high and 3 mm wide were rehabilitated with an immediate fixed provisional prosthesis supported by two anterior axially placed and two trans-crestal posterior tilted implants within 3 h after implant surgery. The final prosthesis, consisting of a CAD-CAM titanium framework and composite teeth was delivered 6 months later. Patients were scheduled for follow-up visits every 6 months to assess clinical and radiological parameters. Patients' satisfaction was assessed by a questionnaire up to 5 years. RESULTS: From April 2008 to May 2017, 56 implants (28 axial and 28 tilted) were inserted in 14 subjects (eight female and six male). The average bone loss for the anterior axial implants was 0.99 ± 0.19 mm at 1 year (n = 28 implants), 1.37 ± 0.31 mm at 5 years (n = 28), and 2.05 ± 0.32 mm at 10 years (n = 14). Only for three implants in two subjects the marginal bone loss was higher than 2 mm after 60 months. No implant was lost, and no prosthetic failure occurred after a mean follow-up of 125 months (range 79-186 months), leading to 100% implant and prosthesis survival rates. The upper 95% confidence limit of the failure rate was 23% and 6% at patient and implant level, respectively. High level of satisfaction was reported at 5-year follow-up. CONCLUSION: Wider sample sizes will be required to determine whether the presented technique is a reliable treatment option for the immediate rehabilitation of the atrophic maxilla.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".