“Peri‐Implantitis”: A Complication of a Foreign Body or a Man‐Made “Disease”. Facts and Fiction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The discrepancy between some scientific views and the daily clinical experience with dental implants has made the topic of "periimplantitis" highly controversial, especially the discussion whether "periimplantitis" should even be considered a "disease" or whether marginal bone loss instead would represent a complication of having a foreign body placed in the oral cavity. PURPOSE: The aim of the present paper was to present the outcomes from a consensus meeting on "peri-implantitis" in Rome, Italy (January 8-10, 2016). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventeen clinical scientists were invited to, based on prepared reviews of the literature, discuss topics related to "periimplantitis." RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Oral implants may lose bone or even display clinical failure. However, progressive bone loss threatening implant survival is rare and limited to a percent or two of all implants followed up over 10 years or more, provided that controlled implant systems are being used by properly trained clinicians. There is very little evidence pointing to implants suffering from a defined disease entity entitled "peri-implantitis." Marginal bone loss around implants is in the great majority of cases associated with immune-osteolytic reactions. Complicating factors include patient genetic disorders, patient smoking, cement or impression material remnants in the peri-implant sulcus, bacterial contamination of the implant components and technical issues such as loose screws, mobile components or fractured materials. These reactions combine to result in cellular responses with the end result being a shift in the delicate balance between the osteoblast and the osteoclast resulting in bone resorption. However, the great majority of controlled implants display a foreign body equilibrium resulting in very high survival rates of the implants over long term of follow-up.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| 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".