Three-year outcomes of Straumann Bone Level SLActive dental implants in daily dental practice: a prospective non-interventional study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this investigation was to evaluate the performance of Straumann Bone Level SLActive implants in various clinical situations in daily dental practice for up to 3 years. METHOD AND MATERIALS: This was a prospective, multicenter, non-interventional study in which implants were placed within approved indications in any situation deemed suitable by the treating clinician. No implant placement or loading protocol was specified, and implants were placed according to the routine treatment protocols at each participating center. RESULTS: In this analysis, data were available from 342 implants in 233 patients in three countries (USA, Canada, and Switzerland). One or two implants were placed in the majority of patients (70.8% and 19.3%, respectively), mostly in the maxilla (71.3%); almost half (47.7%) were placed in the esthetic zone. Implant placement after 4 to > 16 weeks of healing was preferred in Switzerland (92.0%), while 42.0% of implants were placed immediately in the USA and Canada. A flapless procedure was performed in 25.2% of cases in the USA and Canada, compared to 0.5% in Switzerland. Cumulative implant survival and success rates after 3 years were 97.5% and 93.5%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Straumann Bone Level Implants can achieve favorable outcomes and high survival rates after 3 years in daily dental practice. The survival and success rates were comparable with those achieved in formal controlled clinical trials.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".