Apical Peri‐Implantitis: Possible Predisposing Factors, Case Reports, and Surgical Treatment Suggestions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Apical peri-implantitis is often diagnosed by clinical findings such as pain, redness, tenderness, swelling, and sometimes the presence of a fistulous tract. There are few theories about how such a lesion occurs. Hence, the current clinical treatment protocols are scanty. PURPOSE: The aim of this report was to evaluate and confer a more extended surgical protocol and to discuss possible predisposing factors for the development of retrograde peri-implantitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two patients were extensively evaluated with regard to clinical signs, implant treatment, postoperative complications, and surgical treatment. The surgical protocol comprised debridement, with the additional removal of the apical portion of the affected implant. Postoperative checkup included clinical examination and radiographs. The follow-up period ranged from 1 to 3 years following surgical debridement. The possible predisposing factors are also discussed in the article. RESULTS: Both cases healed uneventfully with no further symptoms. Radiographs revealed complete bone fill into the resected area and continuous stable bone levels around the previously affected implants. CONCLUSIONS: It is concluded that recommendations for treatment of apical peri-implantitis are still minimal. In the present study, a surgical approach with resection of the apical portion of the affected implants in combination with debridement is suggested. Our experience was that partially resected oral implants remain osseointegrated and also function well clinically with a follow-up period up to 3 years.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".