A Prospective Longitudinal Study on Implant Prosthetic Rehabilitation in Controlled <scp>HIV</scp>‐Positive Patients with 1‐Year Follow‐Up: The Role of CD4+ Level, Smoking Habits, and Oral Hygiene
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A recent study showed that implant-prosthetic rehabilitation in well-controlled HIV patients gave slightly worse results than in an healthy population, and failures were all linked to infection. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to examine the associations between the success of implant-prosthetic treatment and systemic CD4+ level, smoking habits, and oral hygiene. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This mono-centric study included HIV patients with a stable disease and good oral hygiene requiring implant rehabilitation. Each patient received at least one dental implant. Prosthesis were delivered after 90 days in the upper jaw and 60 days in the lower jaw. Primary outcome measures were prosthetic failures, implant failures, peri-implant marginal bone level changes, and biological complications (peri-implantitis, pus, pain, paresthesia). The possible association with CD4 count, smoking habits, and oral hygiene was analyzed. RESULTS: Sixty-eight patients received 194 implants, and 66 patients (190 implants) were followed for 1 year. No significant associations were found between CD4+ count, oral hygiene-associated variables, and any of the outcome measures. If compared with nonsmoking/light smoking patients, patients who smoked >10 cigarettes/day suffered a statistically significant greater number of implant failures (p ≤ .005), presented a comparatively higher number of peri-implantitis (p < .001), as well as a higher frequency of pus (p ≤ .007), and reported pain (p ≤ .009). CONCLUSION: Within the limitation of the present study, placement of dental implants in HIV-positive patients with stable disease seems a reasonable treatment option, regardless of CD4+ cell count, provided that they are in a normal range. Oral hygiene variables were not influent in this group of patient following recall appointments, while HIV-positive heavy smokers (>10 cigarettes/day) demonstrated an increased risk of early implant failure, peri-implantitis, episodes of pus, and self-reported pain.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".