MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4414196345 · doi:10.1111/cid.70088

Effect of Final Abutment Timing on Immediate Implant Success in Anterior Maxilla: A Randomized Controlled Trial

2025· article· en· W4414196345 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Veronika Pohl, Robert Haas, Rebecca Rosen, Nikolaus Fürhauser, Sebastian Pohl

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAbutmentRandomized controlled trialImplantDental AbutmentsAnterior teeth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This randomized controlled trial aimed to evaluate the impact of early versus delayed change of abutment on bone levels, soft tissue, and patient satisfaction with single-tooth immediate implants. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In 26 patients, flapless immediate implants were placed in the anterior maxillary region (13-23). Postoperatively, all patients received a resin abutment with an emergence profile identical to that of the extracted tooth and were provided with a provisional resin crown. Based on the provisional abutment, a custom digital copy abutment made of zirconium with a titanium adapter was manufactured. The patients were randomized into two groups: the test group received the definitive zirconia abutment after 4 days, while the control group had the abutment changed after 3 months. In both groups, the definitive ceramic crowns were inserted 3 months post-surgery. The primary study outcome was the marginal bone level after 1 year, with peri-implant soft tissue (PES/Pink Esthetic Score) and oral-health-related quality of life (OHIP/Oral Health Impact Profile) defined as secondary parameters. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences for initial bone level remodeling or later bone loss were found between both groups after 1 year. Two prosthetic complications (one per group) required abutment replacement, but no implant failures occurred. Mean marginal bone levels were 0.71 ± 0.95 mm (mesial: 0.55 ± 0.97 mm, distal: 0.86 ± 1.07 mm) in the test group and 0.22 ± 0.93 mm (mesial: 0.15 ± 1.10 mm, distal: 0.30 ± 0.89 mm) in the control group. The Pink Esthetic Score (PES) was 11.9 ± 1.6 in the test group and 10.62 ± 2.87 in the control group (p = 0.39), showing no significant difference in esthetic outcomes. The Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) score at 6 months was also not statistically significant for both groups. CONCLUSION: In immediate implants in the anterior maxilla, the timing of definitive zirconia abutment placement (4 days versus after 3 months) did not result in any statistically significant differences in peri-implant bone level, peri-implant esthetics, or patient-related quality of life.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.486
Teacher spread0.414 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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