Immediate Implants Placed in Infected and Noninfected Sites after Atraumatic Tooth Extraction and Placement with Ultrasonic Bone Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Only a few reports deal with implants placed in infected postextraction sites. PURPOSE: Survival rates of a cohort of immediate implants cases placed in acute and chronically infected sites were compared with a cohort of noninfected ones while (1) tooth extraction and osteotomy sites were prepared with a piezosurgery device and (2) ultrasonication was applied to abate the bacterial charge at infected sites. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty-six patients received 168 immediate implants distributed into three groups: noninfected (85), acute (36), and chronically (47) infected sites. Atraumatic extraction and implant osteotomy were performed with an ultrasonic surgery device without flap elevation. All sites received the same medication and surgical protocol; infected sites were ultrasonicated during 30 seconds at 72 W. Kaplan-Meyer survival rates were calculated at 1 year. RESULTS: The 1-year survival rates of the noninfected, chronically, and acute infected groups were 98.8, 100, and 94.4%, respectively. The differences were not statistically significant. No implant was lost after loading. All teeth and roots could be extracted in one piece. Drilling at extraction sockets was uncomplicated, without skidding. CONCLUSIONS: Implant survival rates might be similar in infected and noninfected sites when infected sites receive standard medical and surgical treatment and are ultrasonicated. Atraumatic tooth/root extraction and implant placement can be reliably performed with piezoelectric surgery.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".