Patient‐Reported Outcomes With Immediate‐Loaded Zygomatic Implant Fixed Rehabilitation in Patients With Edentulous Atrophic Maxilla: A Retrospective Practice‐Based Clinical Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess if immediate-loaded zygomatic implant-supported fixed rehabilitation meets the expectations of and satisfies patients with atrophic edentulous maxilla. METHODS: This study included an analysis of data obtained from the dental records of 22 consecutive patients with atrophic edentulous maxillae who received immediate-loaded zygomatic implant-supported fixed rehabilitation between 2017 and 2020. Patients' expectations and satisfaction scores were recorded on a validated 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS). Data was analysed using descriptive statistics and generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: The results showed a majority of patients had high expectations (VAS > 90) of the rehabilitation with regard to their general satisfaction (71%), aesthetics (71%), chewing (66%), speech (66%), and influence on social life (81%). At 6 months, a majority of the patients showed high general satisfaction (72%), and high satisfaction with aesthetics (77%), chewing (72%), speech (66%), and social life (72%) (VAS > 90). There was a statistically significant increase in the level of satisfaction with chewing from 2 weeks to 6 months after immediate loading (B = 0.309, SE = 0.138, 95% CI: 0.038, 0.580, p = 0.025). A statistically significant association was found between pre-treatment expectations and satisfaction with the rehabilitation's impact on speech, aesthetics, and social life. The satisfaction levels were not influenced by age and sex. All participants agreed that they would recommend this procedure to their peers. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that immediate-loaded zygomatic implant-supported fixed rehabilitation could meet the expectations and satisfy edentulous patients with 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".