Risk of Implant Failure and Marginal Bone Loss in Subjects with a History of Periodontitis: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A number of studies have suggested that implant failure and associated bone loss is greater in subjects with a history of periodontitis. PURPOSE: To evaluate the risk for marginal bone loss around implants and implant failure in subjects with a history of periodontitis compared with periodontally healthy subjects in studies with a minimum 3-year follow-up. DATA SOURCES: The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed databases and relevant journals were searched up to July 1, 2008, with restriction to English language. REVIEW METHODS: Prospective and retrospective longitudinal observational clinical studies comparing periodontal/peri-implant variables among subjects with periodontitis and subjects who were periodontally healthy were included. Screening of studies, quality assessment, and data extraction were conducted independently and in duplicate. Clarification of missing and unclear information was not sought. Outcome measures were: implant survival/failure, peri-implant parameters, changes in radiographic marginal bone level, probing pocket depth, and gingival index. RESULTS: Seventeen potential studies were identified and six studies were accepted comparing patients with periodontitis and periodontally healthy patients treated with implants. Five studies were eligible for meta-analysis of implant survival and four studies were eligible for meta-analysis of bone loss around implants. The odds ratio for implant survival was significantly in favor of periodontally healthy patients (3.02, 95% confidence intervals 1.12-8.15). A random effects model showed more marginal bone loss in periodontitis subjects compared with periodontally healthy subjects (standard mean difference 0.61, 95% confidence interval 0.14-1.09). CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of the heterogenous studies available, a moderate level of evidence indicates that periodontitis subjects were at significantly higher risk for implant failure and greater marginal bone loss as compared with periodontally healthy subjects. Prospective observational studies with subject-based designs are recommended.
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 | 0.015 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.029 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".