Bone Remodeling around Implants Placed in Augmented Sinuses in Patients with and without History of Periodontitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Susceptible individuals may be more prone to bone loss after augmentation procedures. PURPOSE: Identify plausible clinical and biological factors influencing apical and marginal bone remodeling at implants placed in augmented sinuses, in patients with and without history of periodontitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective cross-sectional clinical study analyzed implant bone levels in a group of 104 patients with and without history of periodontitis undergoing 139 sinus augmentation procedures. Marginal and apical bone loss (MBL/ABL) was measured post-loading using a standardized digital technique. Measurements were taken preoperatively, at second stage implant uncovery, one year after loading and at an average of 53-months follow-up. Odds ratios were calculated to evaluate risks factors of contributing variables, such as, smoking, history of periodontitis, membrane perforation, surgical approach, grafting material, use of PRP, and implant design/dimensions. RESULTS: Patients with history of periodontitis were 8.43 times more likely to present more than 2mm of MBL than patients without it (p =.041; CI95%: 1.09-65.12). Smokers were 4.97 times more likely to present over 2 mm of MBL than non-smokers (p =.003; CI95%: 1.70-14.54). Sinus membrane perforations were 11.4 times more likely to present ABL than those without perforation (p = 0.007; CI95%: 1.94-66.93). Mean MBL/ABL after 1-year post-loading and at last control were 0.49/0.56 mm and 0.67/0.46 mm, respectively. The use of a collagen membrane to cover the antrostomy and only xenograft as grafting material decreased ABL by 0.9 mm. The combination of autologous/xenograft bone was 4.04 times more likely to present higher ABL than xenograft alone (p = 0.023; CI95%: 1.21-13.45). Overall implant survival/success rates were 94.39%/91.33%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Smoking and previous history of periodontitis negatively affects implant MBL. Sinus membrane perforation was associated with higher ABL. Lack of association between bone remodeling at marginal and apical areas suggests that they are different and independent processes.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".