Radiographic evaluation of marginal bone maintenance around tissue level implant and bone level implant: a randomised controlled trial. A 1‐year follow‐up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The etiologic factors associated with crestal bone loss have not been comprehensively clarified. Several theories exist as to the reason for the observed changes in crestal bone height following implant restoration. In the 1990s, the wide-diameter implants were commercially introduced. Initially, the implants were restored with standard-diameter abutments because of lack of matching prosthetic components. Long-term radiographic follow-up of these 'platform-switched' restored wide-diameter dental implants has demonstrated a smaller-than-expected vertical change in the crestal bone height around these implants that is typically observed around implants restored conventionally with prosthetic components of matching diameters. The aim of this randomised controlled study was to assess radiographically marginal bone level alterations in implants restored according to the platform-switching concept compared with traditionally restored implants. Fifty-four subjects to participate in this randomised controlled study were selected. Two groups were assigned at random: control group (56 implants were restored with standard matching-diameter abutments) and test group (58 implants were restored with medialised abutments). X-ray explorations were taken for peri-implant bone level at the minute the last cementing of the prosthesis and at 1-year follow-up. NHI Image was used to digitally process and manipulate the radiographic images and perform the measurements. Mean of bone loss with platform-switching implants was -0·01 mm, and the mean of bone loss with standard platform implant was 0·42 mm. Outcomes of this study indicated that the platform-switching design could preserve the crestal bone levels to 1-year follow-up. There was a statistically significant difference in marginal 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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".