MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416329886 · doi:10.1002/cre2.70167

Rehabilitation of the Atrophic Edentulous Maxilla: A Retrospective Cohort Study Comparing Survival of Delayed‐Loaded Implants in Grafted Bone Versus Immediately Loaded Implants in Native Bone

2025· article· en· W4416329886 on OpenAlexaff
Evelina Haroyan‐Darbinyan, Qiman Gao, Pablo de Lillo, Jesús Torres, Samer Abi‐Nader, Daniel Nach, Faleh Tamimi

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical and Experimental Dental Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsMoncton HospitalMcGill University
FundersQatar National Library
KeywordsRetrospective cohort studyRehabilitationCohort studyTreatment modalityCohort

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: This retrospective cohort study aimed to assess the survival rate of implants placed in grafted edentulous maxillary arches following a delayed loading protocol versus a graftless approach with an immediate loading protocol. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty seven patients with atrophic edentulous maxillae were included in two groups: Group-1 (GG group, n = 155 implants): 26 patients that underwent maxillary bone grafting before treatment with axially placed delayed loading implants and provided with a fixed full-arch prostheses; Group-2 (GL group; n = 244 implants): 61 patients who received axial and tilted implants without bone augmentation followed by an immediately loaded fixed full-arch prostheses. Patients were followed up for up to 10 years. Kaplan-Meier and Mantel-Cox analyses were performed to determine implant survival rates, and a Cox hazards model was run to assess the influence of patient, implant, and prosthesis-based covariates. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in implant failure rates between the two treatment groups (p = 0.298). Five implant failures were observed in Group-1 (GG group) and four failures were observed in Group-2 (GL group) (N = 9). Survival rate was 96.8% and 98.4% in the GG and GL groups, respectively. No significant association between patient and implant-based covariates and implant failure was observed in both groups; however, a significant association was observed regarding the nature of the opposing arch (p = 0.019). CONCLUSION: Immediately loaded implants placed in maxillary native bone show statistically similar survival rates compared to implants placed in grafted bone following a delayed loading. The nature of the opposing arch may negatively influence the survival rate of dental implants. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: For atrophic edentulous maxillae, both grafted and graftless approach may represent a viable treatment modality in the long term.

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)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.097
GPT teacher head0.465
Teacher spread0.368 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical and Experimental Dental ResearchSame topicDental Implant Techniques and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207