MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2345743366 · doi:10.1902/cap.2016.160010

Surgical Management of a Severe Early Implant Complication: A 19‐Year Follow‐Up Case Report

2016· article· en· W2345743366 on OpenAlexaff
Nader Hamdan, Felipe Corrêa Batista, Eraldo L. Batista

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Advances in Periodontics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineImplantDentistrySurgeryComplicationDental implantBridge (graph theory)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Reports on long-term response to treatment of different implant complications with a span of more than 15 years are scarce. This case report presents a patient with early severe bone loss around an unloaded dental implant, with treatment and 19-year follow up. CASE PRESENTATION: A 60-year-old male non-smoker with no known systemic contributory history presented for replacement of the mandibular right first molar. The tooth was replaced with a titanium plasma-sprayed (TPS) implant using a non-submerged healing approach. Eight weeks post-surgery the patient reported discomfort in the area, followed by swelling, suppuration, and deep probing depths (PDs). A full-thickness flap revealed a bone defect that was thoroughly debrided until its deepest extension. The implant surface was scaled and subjected to air-powder treatment, followed by rubbing the TPS surface with a cotton pellet soaked in HCl-tetracycline. Guided bone regeneration was accomplished with use of an allograft followed by placement of a non-resorbable membrane. Follow-up after 19 years showed stability of the bone gain and reduction of PDs. CONCLUSION: The 19-year successful long-term result calls attention to the potential benefit of the combined anti-infective/regenerative approach and lasting effects of surgical management of early implant complications.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.373
Threshold uncertainty score0.562

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.353 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Advances in PeriodonticsSame topicDental Implant Techniques and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207