Dental Implants Placed in Periodontally Infected Sites in Humans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of the present study was to evaluate fresh socket implant outcome leaving granulomatous tissue into the bone defects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Subjects requiring tooth extractions in periodontal infected sites were selected for this prospective study. Only patients with 4-wall defects and asymptomatic ones were included. The fresh sockets were randomly scheduled into two groups: In one group (Removal Group, RG) granulomatous tissue was removed and, in the other group (Left Group, LG) granulomatous tissue was left. Implants were positioned immediately after tooth extraction, and were loaded after 3 months in both groups. Intraoral digital radiographs were performed at temporary prosthesis placement; at 12, 24 and 36 months to evaluate marginal bone levels changes. Moreover, clinical parameters were acquired at the same time points. RESULTS: Sixty patients were included in this study. Three-hundred seventy-two implants were placed immediately after tooth extraction and, at 3-year follow-up, a survival rate of 98.66% was reported, 2 implants were lost in RG and 3 implants in LG. At 36-month follow-up, not statistically significant differences were found between RG and LG in marginal bone level changes and clinical parameters (p > 005). Moreover, not statistically significant differences were found in intragroup comparisons over time (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: With the limits of this study it was concluded that granulomatous tissue left in infected fresh sockets doesn't injury dental implant outcome.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".