Complications After Implant Site Ridge Preservation and Delayed Implant Placement: A Case Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The patient required removal of teeth #2 and #3 as a result of advanced bone loss and an endodontic–periodontic lesion at tooth #3. Case Presentation: The patient began taking metronidazole, 250 mg every 8 hours, 24 hours before surgery. Both teeth were extracted, and, after thorough debridement using curets and saline irrigation, their sockets were packed with bovine porous bone mineral covered by a dense polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) barrier secured with sutures. The barrier was removed at 1 month. After 6 months healing, two dental implants were placed using submerged technique. Four months later, the implants were uncovered and restored with cement‐retained crowns. The patient was contacted 1 year after restoration for reevaluation, at which time both implants showed bone loss. At site #2, a large subgingival cement deposit was seen in radiographs. At tooth #3, bone loss mirrored the original endodontic–periodontic lesion, suggesting that it had not been eradicated. Amoxicillin, 500 mg every 8 hours, was prescribed beginning 24 hours before surgery. The cement on implant #2 was removed, and the associated defect was debrided. Implant #3 was explanted, and its socket was debrided and regrafted using bovine porous bone mineral covered with calcium sulfate paste and then a dense PTFE barrier. The barrier was removed at 1 month, and the sites were allowed to heal for 7 months before replacing implant #3. The replacement crown for implant #3 was screw retained, and both implants appeared healthy 1 year later. Conclusion: Extraction site preservation grafting with xenograft and a barrier is an accepted treatment option but may on occasion result in complications, including failure of dental implants.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".