MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4412654325 · doi:10.1111/cid.70079

Immediate Implant Placement and Provisionalization in the Aesthetic Zone Using a Digital Workflow: A 1‐Year Prospective Case Series Study

2025· article· en· W4412654325 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Vincent J. J. Donker, Gerry M. Raghoebar, Arjan Vissink, Henny J. A. Meijer

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkflowSeries (stratigraphy)Case seriesImplantDentistryMedicineComputer scienceSurgeryGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Immediate implant placement and provisionalization in the maxillary aesthetic zone necessitates meticulous treatment planning. The integration of intraoral scanning with cone beam computed tomography allows for three-dimensional prosthetic-driven planning of the implant. Additionally, it facilitates static computer-assisted implant surgery and prefabrication of a temporary restoration, enabling chairside restoration of the immediate implant. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical, aesthetic, radiographic, and patient-reported outcomes after immediate implant placement and restoration. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a prospective case series, 30 patients with a failing tooth in the maxillary aesthetic zone were included and received immediate implant placement with a bone graft and a prefabricated temporary restoration. The definitive restoration was placed 3 months later. The clinical, aesthetic, radiographic, and patient-reported outcomes were collected prior to implant treatment, 6 weeks after the temporary restoration, and 1 month and 1 year after the definitive restoration. RESULTS: The prefabricated temporary restoration could be placed in all patients. Three cases of early implant failure were observed (implant survival rate 90%); hence, 27 patients were evaluated after 1 year. The survival and success rates were 100% for the temporary and 100% and 96%, respectively, for the definitive restorations. Plaque, bleeding on probing, and peri-implant inflammation were absent in most cases. At the 1-year follow-up, the mean (SD) Pink Esthetic Score and White Esthetic Score (scale 0-20) was 15.4 (2.5). The mean (SD) marginal bone level change between implant placement and the 1-year follow-up was -0.18 mm (0.57) on the mesial side and -0.44 mm (1.23) on the distal side. The median buccal bone thickness remained stable after immediate implant placement and grafting. The mean (SD) patient satisfaction (scale 0-10) was 9.2 (0.8) at the 1-year evaluation. CONCLUSION: The digital workflow has the potential to enable the manufacture of prefabricated temporary restorations, leading to satisfactory clinical, aesthetic, radiographic, and patient-reported outcomes after immediate placement of single-tooth implants in the aesthetic zone. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered in the National Trial Register (NL8264).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.080
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.376 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research→Same topicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→