MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Development of a peak insertion torque prediction model for parallel-walled dental implants

2025· article· en· W4408034488 on OpenAlexafffund
Ammar Alsheghri, Ali Abdalla, Basel Mokahhal, Arthur Rodríguez González Cortes, Jesús Torres Garcia-Denche, Alicia Celemín Viñuela, Rocío Cascos, Jun Song, Faleh Tamimi

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Engineering & Physics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaKing Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals
KeywordsTorqueBiomedical engineeringOrthodonticsDentistryComputer scienceMaterials scienceEngineeringMedicinePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Implant peak insertion torque is a commonly used indication of primary stability that dentists rely on to make clinical decisions. The aim of this manuscript is to model the peak torque required for dental implant insertion based on clinical data such as bone properties, implant properties, and drilling procedure. A total of 116 parallel-walled Sweden and Martina dental implants were included in this study. Parameters such as age, sex, bone quality (derived from radiographs), applied peak insertion torque, implant location, implant length, final drill diameter, and implant diameter were recorded. Six data-driven regression models were trained and tested using different combinations of the clinical data to predict the peak torque. A physics-based model was also derived for the peak torque and compared with the data-driven models. The neural network model with early stopping achieved the best accuracy in predicting the clinically measured torque (R 2 = 0.7692, MSE = 0.08815). Within the limitations of this study, the results suggest that it is possible to predict the peak torque required for implant placement based on the patient's radiographs, implant's properties, and drill diameter. The findings of this study can serve as a reference for dentists in choosing drilling parameters for dental implant surgeries.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.863
Threshold uncertainty score0.549

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.267 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Engineering & PhysicsSame topicDental Implant Techniques and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207