Immediate Implant Placement in Sockets with Asymptomatic Apical Periodontitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of the present study was to evaluate if the presence of granulation tissue in asymptomatic apical periodontitis compromised immediate implant placement. METHODS: Patients requiring extraction of one tooth (maxillary and mandibular incisive, canine or premolar) with asymptomatic apical periodontitis, were recruited for this prospective study. They were randomly scheduled into two groups: in first group (A) including 30 teeth, reactive soft tissue was debrided before implant placement, and in second group (B) including 30 teeth, reactive soft tissue was left in the apical lesion. Implants were positioned immediately after tooth extraction, and were loaded after 3 months in both groups. Cone beam computed tomography was performed before tooth extraction and at 1-year follow-up to evaluate the radiolucency around the root apex and the implant, bucco-lingual bone levels were also checked. RESULTS: Sixty patients were included in this study. Sixty implants were placed immediately after tooth extraction and, at 1-year follow-up, a survival rate of 100% was reported. After one year both groups showed absence of radiolucent zone at the apical region of implants. All fresh sockets presented a buccal-palatal bone reduction in both groups after one year, even if not statistically significant differences were found between baseline bone levels and within groups. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of the present study, the immediate placement of implants into the extraction sockets with asymptomatic apical periodontitis, in presence of primary stability, did not lead to an increased rate of complications and rendered an equally favorable type of tissue integration.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".