A Retrospective Analysis of Implants Immediately Placed in Sites With and Without Periapical Pathology in Sixty‐Four Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many patients requiring implant therapy present with hopeless teeth exhibiting periapical pathology. The advisability of implant placement in such situations has not been conclusively determined. METHODS: Sixty-four patients underwent therapy in their maxillary incisor region. Treatment consisted of immediate implant placement in a site demonstrating periapical pathology, and immediate implant placement in a "pristine" site, either during the same visit or during separate visits. The implants placed in the sites demonstrating periapical pathology were followed in function for ≤117 months, with a mean time in function of 64 months. The implants placed in pristine sites were followed in function for ≤120 months, with a mean time in function of 62 months. RESULTS: Two implants in the central incisor positions of one patient demonstrated 2 mm of buccal recession after ≈46 months in function. These implants were deemed esthetic failures, despite the absence of inflammation and continued clinical implant immobility, yielding cumulative survival rates of 98.1 and 98.2 for implants placed in sites with periapical pathology and implants placed in sites without periapical pathology, respectively, according to published criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Implants immediately placed in sites demonstrating periapical pathology yielded results comparable to those immediately placed in pristine sites. The difference in survival rates was not statistically significant.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".