Chairside vs Prefabricated Sealing Socket Abutments for Posterior Immediate Implants: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This randomized clinical trial aimed to compare changes in soft tissue height, probing depth, and buccal contour volume loss following immediate implant placement using either chairside composite or prefabricated zirconia Sealing Socket Abutments (SSAs) in the posterior region. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 47 patients requiring posterior tooth extraction and immediate implant placement were randomly assigned to one of two groups: the composite Sealing Socket Abutment (CS) group (n = 24), receiving chairside-fabricated abutments, or the zirconia Sealing Socket Abutment (ZR) group (n = 23), receiving prefabricated abutments. Implants were placed immediately after extraction, using static computer-assisted implant surgery (sCAIS). Supra-Platform Tissue Height (SPTH) and total horizontal tissues (THT) were assessed using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) over a 3-month healing period. Implant survival, probing pocket depths (PPD), bleeding on probing (BOP) and plaque index (PI) were recorded clinically, while volumetric analysis was performed using digital impressions. RESULTS: SPTH remained stable from baseline to the 3-month follow-up, with a mean change of -0.17 mm in the CS group and -0.44 mm in the ZR group. These differences were not statistically significant (p > 0.05). THT exhibited significant horizontal shrinkage in both groups over the 3-month period. In the CS group, THT decreased by 1.00 mm, while the ZR group showed a reduction of 1.17 mm (p < 0.001). PPD increased in the CS group from 2.8 mm to 3.7 mm on the palatal/lingual aspect and from 2.5 mm to 3.2 mm on the buccal aspect (p = 0.026). In contrast, the ZR group showed a decrease from 3.1 mm to 2.7 mm palatally/lingually and remained stable buccally at 2.6 mm to 2.7 mm (p = 0.001). BOP in the CS group decreased from 42.3% to 7.7% (p = 0.009), while the ZR group maintained low BOP levels, decreasing slightly from 17.4% to 4.4% (p = 0.346). CONCLUSIONS: Both approaches showed comparable outcomes. ZR abutments resulted in shallower probing depths, while CS abutments showed less volumetric shrinkage. SPTH remained stable in both groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered prior to patient enrollment at ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05748379.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".