The effect of the local use of chlorhexidine in surgical treatment of experimental peri‐implantitis in dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate the effect of surgical treatment of experimental peri-implantitis at implants with different surface characteristics using different anti-infective procedures. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Four implants with different surface characteristics (A: TiOblast, B: OsseoSpeed, C: AT-I, D: TiUnite) were installed in a randomized order in each side of the mandible in 6 labrador dogs 3 months after tooth extraction. Experimental peri-implantitis was induced 3 months later. Surgical treatment of peri-implantitis was performed. The implants were cleaned with gauze soaked in either saline (control) or chlorhexidine (test). Clinical and radiographical examinations were performed and microbiological samples were taken during a 6-month period after surgery. Biopsies were obtained and prepared for histological analysis. RESULTS: Clinical signs of soft tissue inflammation were reduced after surgical therapy in most test and control sites. While the analysis of bone level alterations in radiographs together with histological and microbiological assessments of resolution of peri-implantitis lesions failed to demonstrate statistically significant differences between test and control procedures, the evaluations disclosed significant differences between implant D and implants A, B and C on treatment outcome. CONCLUSION: It is suggested that (i) the local use of chlorhexidine has minor influence on treatment outcome, (ii) resolution of peri-implantitis following surgical treatment without the adjunctive use of local and systemic antimicrobial agents is possible and (iii) the results are influenced by implant surface characteristics.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".