The significance of vertical platform discrepancies and splinting on marginal bone levels for adjacent dental implants
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this retrospective study was to investigate the influence of vertical platform discrepancies for splinted and non-splinted adjacent implants on radiographic marginal bone loss (RMBL). METHODS: Data from January 2000 to February 2021 were collected from the electronic charts of 156 patients with 337 implants at the UCSF School of Dentistry. Five different implant restoration categories were evaluated for radiographic evidence of proximal RMBL. Patients with (1) two adjacent single crowns, (2) two adjacent splinted crowns, (3) three-unit bridges supported by two implants, (4) three adjacent single crowns, and (5) three adjacent splinted crowns. Inclusion required baseline radiograph taken at the time of prosthesis delivery or final impression, and follow-up radiographs at least 12 months after restorations have been in function. Measurements assessed included vertical distance between adjacent implant platforms and proximal RMBL around implants. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) of implants with ≥1 mm RMBL between different type of restorations were calculated. RESULTS: In general, prostheses supported by splinted adjacent implants demonstrated a significant association with the presence of ≥1 mm RMBL (OR = 2.55, 95% CI = 1.17-5.17, p = 0.018) when compared to prostheses supported by non-splinted adjacent implants. In addition, prostheses with a vertical platform discrepancy ≥0.5 mm demonstrated a significant association with the presence of ≥1 mm RMBL (OR = 4.30, 95% CI = 1.85 to 10.01, p = 0.007) when compared to prostheses with a vertical platform discrepancy <0.5 mm. When adjacent implants had ≥0.5 mm vertical platform discrepancy, the majority (66.67%) of three splinted adjacent crowns had at least one implant with ≥1 mm RMBL. This was followed by two splinted adjacent crowns (58.97%), three-unit bridge (25.93%), two single adjacent crowns (24.24%), and three single adjacent crowns (18.18%). When adjacent implants had ≥1 mm vertical platform discrepancy, there was an increased percentage of implants with ≥1 mm RMBL. The restorative design associated with the highest percent of implants with bone loss was three splinted adjacent crowns (70%), two splinted adjacent crowns (61.11%), three single adjacent crowns (40%), and three-unit bridge and two single adjacent implants (21.05%). Three splinted adjacent crowns were significantly associated with ≥1 mm RMBL when compared to three-unit bridge (OR 6.56, 95% CI 1.59-27.07). Similarly, two splinted crowns were significantly associated with ≥1 mm RMBL when compared to two single crowns (OR = 2.50, 95% CI = 1.08-5.79). CONCLUSION: Two or three adjacent implants placed with a vertical platform discrepancy, when splinted together, are associated with higherincidence of ≥1 mm RMBL than non-splinted restorations.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,007 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».