The Peri-Implant Sulcus Compared with Internal Implant and Suprastructure Components: A Microbiological Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: A recent in vivo study has shown considerable contamination of internal implant and suprastructure components with great biodiversity, indicating bacterial leakage along the implant-abutment interface, abutment-prosthesis interface, and restorative margins. The goal of the present study was to compare microbiologically the peri-implant sulcus to these internal components on implants with no clinical signs of peri-implantitis and in function for many years. Checkerboard DNA-DNA hybridization was used to identify and quantify 40 species. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fifty-eight turned titanium Brånemark implants in eight systemically healthy patients (seven women, one man) under regular supportive care were examined. All implants had been placed in the maxilla and loaded with a screw-retained full-arch bridge for an average of 9.6 years. Gingival fluid samples were collected from the deepest sulcus per implant for microbiological analysis. As all fixed restorations were removed, the cotton pellet enclosed in the intra-coronal compartment and the abutment screw were retrieved and microbiologically evaluated. RESULTS: The pellet enclosed in the suprastructure was very similar to the peri-implant sulcus in terms of bacterial detection frequencies and levels for practically all the species included in the panel. Yet, there was virtually no microbial link between these compartments. When comparing the abutment screw to the peri-implant sulcus, the majority of the species were less frequently found, and in lower numbers at the former. However, a relevant link in counts for a lot of bacteria was described between these compartments. Even though all implants in the present study showed no clinical signs of peri-implantitis, the high prevalence of numerous species associated with pathology was striking. CONCLUSIONS: Intra-coronal compartments of screw-retained fixed restorations were heavily contaminated. The restorative margin may have been the principal pathway for bacterial leakage. Contamination of abutment screws most likely occurred from the peri-implant sulcus via the implant-abutment interface and abutment-prosthesis interface.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".