A retrospective study on 1592 consecutively performed operations in one private referral clinic. Part II: Peri‐implantitis and implant failures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Few large-scale follow-up studies are reported on routine implant treatment. PURPOSE: To report retrospective data on peri-implantitis and overall implant failures at one private referral clinic (effectiveness study). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 1017 patients were consecutively provided with 3082 implants with an anodized surface during 1592 operations between 2000 and 2011. All patients with any of four events of problems were identified; "peri-implantitis," "surgery related to peri-implantitis," "overall implant failure," and "late implant failures." A logistic multivariate analysis was performed to identify possible factors with association to the four events. RESULTS: "Lower jaw surgery" (HR = 3.03) and "immediate gingival grafting" at implant surgery (HR = 3.34) were factors with the highest risk associated to the two peri-implantitis events, respectively. Risk of peri-implantitis increased by year of inclusion from year 2000 (HR = 1.28). "Overall implant failures" were associated to "smoking" (HR = 2.11), "surgical technique" (highest for direct placement; HR = 1.67), and "type of implant" (NobelActive CC; HR = 2.48). NobelActive CC was more used in upper jaws, using immediate or one-stage surgery with bone and mucosa grafting procedures than other implants (P < .05). Implants lost after first year only showed an association to "lower jaw" (HR = 2.63) and "early inflammation" (HR = 17.95). CONCLUSION: Peri-implantitis seem to be associated to surgical protocols more often in the posterior lower jaw in routine practice. The problems seem to increase during the inclusion period, possibly related to increased use of direct implant placement technique and grafting protocols. Early inflammatory problems have in the previous report on the present patient group been associated to the mid-aged patient. Overall/late implant failures were shown to be associated to earlier inflammatory problems, smoking habits, surgical technique, and treatment in the posterior lower jaw.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".