Retrospective study on the clinical and radiographic outcomes of 2.8 mm diameter implants supporting fixed prostheses up to 11 years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to report the clinical and radiographic results of 2.8 mm two-piece narrow diameter implant (NDI) supporting fixed restorations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Clinical and radiographic data of 54 NDIs in 32 patients were retrospectively assessed after 2 to 11 (mean 8.17) years of follow-up. Clinical and radiographic measurements were taken. Survival rate, implant and prosthesis failure, pink aesthetic scores (PES), white aesthetic scores (WES), bleeding on probing (BOP), probing depth (PD), marginal bone loss (MBL), and mechanical and biological complications were evaluated. RESULTS: An implant failed during the follow-up period, resulting in a cumulative survival rate of 98.15% at the implant level and 96.88% in the patient. The total mean values of PES and WES for 2.8 mm NDIs were 7.09 ± 1.15 (range: 3.33-9.00) and 7.42 ± 1.03 (range: 3.67-9.33). The prevalence of sites with positive BOP was 38.14 ± 29.77%. The mean PD value was 2.46 ± 0.62 mm. The average MBL was 1.15 ± 0.74 mm (range: 0.25-4.03 mm). No implant or abutment fracture was detected. A veneer chipping was present in one patient, and a loose crown appeared in another patient. Two implants (3.7%) and two patients (6.3%) were diagnosed with peri-implantitis. CONCLUSION: Within the limitation of the study, the results indicate that the use of two-piece 2.8 mm NDI for the fixed prosthetic rehabilitation of edentulous regions with reduced interdental and/or buccal-lingual width is viable.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".