Changes of Marginal Bone Level in Patients with “Progressive Bone Loss” at Brånemark System® Implants: A Radiographic Follow‐Up Study over an Average of 9 Years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients have in many studies been identified with progressive bone loss and peri-implantitis problems, but few studies are available where these groups of patients have been followed up. PURPOSE: The purpose of this paper is to study further progression of bone loss in a cohort of 182 patients that have been reported to suffer from "progressive" bone loss and peri-implantitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Altogether, 182 patients that have earlier been identified to suffer from "progressive" bone loss formed the present study group. Data from patients' files have been retrieved, and intraoral radiographs have been analyzed for further bone level changes. Bone loss has been measured from time of inclusion into the present group to last available radiographs. Within each patient, one or several implants were diagnosed to suffer from "progressive" bone loss (affected), whereas others are not (unaffected). RESULTS: Altogether, 145 patients (80%) were radiographically followed up on an average of 9.1 years (SD 3.77) after inclusion. Twenty-four implants (3.1%) were lost in 16 patients (11%). Marginal bone loss was on an average 0.3 mm (SD 0.75) at stable implants with only small differences between "affected" and "unaffected" implants. In total, 67 implants (8.6%) presented an annual bone loss of >0.2 mm. Oral hygienist treatment and/or peri-implantitis surgery did not neither reduce implant failure rate nor marginal bone loss in 88 treated patients as compared with untreated patients. CONCLUSIONS: Less than one-third of the patients identified with "progressive bone loss" showed one or more implants as failures or with high annual bone loss (>0.2 mm) during follow-up (11.6% of implants). Treated patients (oral hygienist and/or surgery) did not perform better than untreated patients with regard to bone loss or implant failure.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".