Apical Fracture of One‐Piece Titanium–Zirconium Mini‐Implant for Mandibular Overdenture: A Prospective 3‐Year Follow‐Up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the 3-year clinic-radiographic features and risk factors for apical fracture of mini-implants for mandibular overdentures. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Participants in a clinical trial (n = 74) were assessed for post-insertion identification of apical fractures of one-piece titanium-zirconium mini-implants (Straumann Mini-Implant System). Fractures were identified during implant insertion or in follow-up imaging exams. Cases were clinically and radiographically monitored up to the 3-year follow-up. RESULTS: Five implants in five patients had apical fractures (1.69% of the 296 inserted implants). No clinical signs of peri-implant complications were found, and overall treatment outcomes were positive for all patients. Satisfactory osseointegration was achieved, and no evidence of periapical pathology was noted on panoramic radiographs. The patients were notified about the apical implant fracture at the time of the surgery, and during follow-up appointments, they were reassured about the absence of further complications in the long term. It was hypothesized that the increased risk of fracture was associated with high insertion torques (around 80 N cm) and implant insertion in areas where the tip engages into a hard basal cortical bone (Types I-II) with an inclined cortical surface in the lingual aspect of the alveolar bone. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of apical fracture was low and did not result in any clinically relevant complications and may be detected during the surgery or in follow-up radiographs. Although the intraosseous implant tip fragment may not be of major concern, additional caution to prevent excessive insertion torque and to avoid anatomical regions of higher risk may be advisable.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".