Outcome of Single Dental Implants Over 38–40 Years: A Long‐Term Follow‐Up Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This is a comprehensive, long-term follow-up study of single-implant treatments. At the Brånemark Clinic in Gothenburg, Sweden, during the period of 1982-1985, 16 patients received single-tooth implants. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluates the survival rate of the implants after nearly four decades, focusing on the biological and technical complications. METHODS: Of the original 16 patients with a total of 23 implants, 13 patients with 18 implants were available for the follow-up and were included in the study. Clinical and radiographic examinations were performed on these patients. RESULTS: The cumulative survival rates were 95.6% for the implants and 60.9% for the implant-supported crowns after 38-40 years in function. The marginal bone level changes were 0.9 ± 1.0 mm (range, -0.5─3.0 mm) over the follow-up period. The frequency of biological complications was low; although mucositis was common, no cases of peri-implantitis were observed. The mean plaque index was 16.9% ± 11.6% (range, 1%─34%) and the mean probing depth around the implants was 3.8 ± 2.2 mm (range, 0.0─7.0 mm). Few technical complications were observed, although many of the original implant-supported crowns had been replaced for esthetic reasons. CONCLUSION: The findings emphasize the importance of long-term follow-up in implant dentistry, particularly for younger patients, to improve understanding of potential complications and the longevity of treatment outcomes. Overall, single-tooth implants have a favorable long-term prognosis, though crown replacement may eventually be necessary.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
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".