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
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".