Clinical, radiological, and gene expression analyses in smokers and non‐smokers, Part 2: RCT on the late healing phase of osseointegration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The mechanisms behind the impact of smoking on osseointegration are not fully understood. PURPOSE: To investigate the initial clinical and molecular course of osseointegration of different implants in smokers and non-smokers in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Smoking (n = 16) and non-smoking (n = 16) patients received 3 implant types: machined, oxidized, and laser-modified surfaces. Baseline bone biopsies were retrieved from the implant sites. After 60 and 90 days, the pain score, implant stability quotient (ISQ), and peri-implant crevicular fluid (PICF) gene expression were analyzed. Furthermore, radiological and clinical assessments were made at 90 days. RESULTS: At 90 days, no pain was reported, irrespective of smoking habit. A higher ISQ was found in smokers compared with non-smokers. Marginal bone loss (MBL) was greater in smokers than in non-smokers. The comparison of implant surfaces revealed greater MBL exclusively at the machined implants in smokers. At 90 days in smokers, the PICF around machined implants revealed a higher expression of the proinflammatory cytokine, interleukin-6 (IL-6), and a lower expression of the osteogenic gene, osteocalcin (OC), compared with the PICF around modified implants. Furthermore, OC expression was lower at machined implants in smokers compared with machined implants in non-smokers. After adjustment for age and implant location (maxilla/mandible), multivariate regression revealed the following predictors of MBL: smoking, bleeding on probing at 90 days, hypoxia-inducible factor 1 alpha (HIF-1α) expression at baseline and IL-6 expression in PICF at 90 days. CONCLUSIONS: During the early phase of osseointegration, non-smokers and smokers present a similar, high implant survival. In contrast, smokers present a greater MBL, particularly at machined implants. HIF-1α baseline expression in the recipient bone and IL-6 expression in PICF cells are important molecular determinants for MBL after 90 days. It is concluded that smoking has an early effect on osseointegration, which is dependent on the implant surface properties and the local host response.
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 | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".