Twelve‐Year Retrospective Follow‐Up of Machined Implants in the Posterior Maxilla: Radiographic and Peri‐Implant Outcome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To retrospectively evaluate the survival rate of machined implants in sinus-lifted posterior maxilla after 12 years, with special reference to radiographic outcome and peri-implantitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 37 possible candidates, 29 patients with 59 implants were evaluated. Implants were placed in the posterior maxilla in combination with a sinus elevation procedure (27 patients) or 6 months after sinus elevation (2 patients). Marginal bone level changes were radiographically evaluated at baseline and 1, 7, and 12 years post-loading. Probing depth was measured; presence/absence of plaque and bleeding on probing were recorded. RESULTS: Four out of 59 implants failed in 4 out of 29 patients (cumulative survival rate = 93.2%). The mean bone loss was 0.78 mm (± 0.88) after 12 years. Changes in the mean bone level were statistically significant between baseline and all the other follow-up intervals (p < .001). Statistically significant differences could be demonstrated for the first- to 12th-year interval (p < .05) and for the seventh- to 12th-year interval (p < 0.001). No statistically significant differences could be demonstrated at the first- to seventh-year interval (p = .32). The mean overall probing depth was 2.9 ± 0.66 mm. Probing depth was moderately correlated with the marginal bone changes at 7 year and after 12 year follow up (p = .05). No signs of peri-implantitis were reported during the 12-year follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: This follow-up demonstrates a very good prognosis when implants with machined surfaces are used. The frequencies of implant failures were very small. Within the limits of the results from this study, the risk of peri-implantitis in the posterior maxilla might be considered a minor problem when implants with machined surfaces are used.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".