Bacterial Composition at the Implant‐Abutment Connection under Loading in vivo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Platform-switched implants have been demonstrated to prevent bone loss after loading. The present study evaluated bacterial composition of sites from implant-abutment connections of immediately loaded implants, which were placed in the anterior mandible. Ten patients participated in this study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A and B implant systems with two different prosthetic connections (Morse tapered vs internal polygonal butt-joint connections, respectively) were placed and loaded for 2 years. The abutments were removed (AB sample) after careful decontamination. Bacterial sampling of the abutments, inner part of the implants (before/visit 1 and after rinsing with chlorhexidine [CHX]/visit 2), and after new abutment connection and loading for 1 additional month, a new sampling (visit 3) was taken to compare the bacteria composition in association with the two connections. Bacterial profiles of samples were determined by using the human oral microbe identification microarray. RESULTS: A total of 240 samples were analyzed taken at different time intervals. Nonparametric statistical analysis (Wilcoxon Rank sum) with uncorrected alpha (p < .05) and after corrections (Benjamini-Hochberg) found no statistical significance between the two connections. No significant changes in the overall microbial profiles were detected at the different time intervals. However, there were trends toward presence of periodontitis-associated species at the B implants in all samples (AB, visit 1, even after CHX irrigation) and after decontamination, abutment replacement, and 1-month loading period. CONCLUSIONS: CHX irrigation does not seem to have any effect on decontamination of connections. As shown previously, there is significantly more bone loss around B implants compared with A implants. Although there was no statistical difference in the microbial profiles, there was indeed a trend for the presence of typical periodontal pathogens associated with the internal polygonal butt-joint connection. A possible scenario is that this connection tends to harbor the pathogens that may be involved in subsequent bone loss.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".