Interimplant Distance and Crestal Bone Resorption: A Histologic Study in the Canine Mandible
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Crestal bone loss has been shown to occur around dental implants. This crestal bone resorption may determine a more apical position of the gingival margin. A clear trend of increased bone loss with increased interimplant distance has been reported. PURPOSE: The aim of the present study was to evaluate, in the canine mandible, the crestal bone behavior around dental implants inserted with different interimplant distances. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sandblasted and acid-etched implants (Bone System, Milano, Italy) were placed in the mandibles of six beagle dogs. Each dog received 10 implants in the mandible (five in the right side and five in the left side). A total of 60 implants was used in this study. The implants were divided in four groups: group I, with a 2 mm interimplant distance; group II, with a 3 mm interimplant distance; group III, with a 4 mm interimplant distance; and group IV, with a 5 mm interimplant distance. The dogs were killed after 12 months. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were found in regard to vertical bone loss whereas on the contrary, statistically significant differences were found in regard to lateral bone loss (p = .0001). Statistically significant differences also were found in regard to vertical crestal bone loss (p = .0001). In fact vertical crestal bone loss decreased, from 1.98 mm in group I to 0.23 mm in group IV. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical significance of these data lies in the fact that the increased crestal bone loss results in an increase in the distance between the base of the contact points of the neighboring implants and the crest of bone, and this fact could determine whether the papilla is present or absent between two 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".