MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2752596447 · doi:10.1111/cid.12538

A retro‐prospective effectiveness study on 3448 implant operations at one referral clinic: A multifactorial analysis. Part II: Clinical factors associated to peri‐implantitis surgery and late implant failures

2017· article· en· W2752596447 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Torsten Jemt

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGeistlich Pharma
KeywordsMedicinePeri-implantitisImplantDentistryImplant failureProspective cohort studyHazard ratioSurgeryInternal medicineConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Little knowledge is available on implant treatment in large effectiveness studies in routine practice. PURPOSE: To report retro-prospective data on prevalence of peri-implantitis surgery and late implant failures in a large number of routine patients at 1 referral clinic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Altogether 9582 implants with an anodized surface (Nobel Biocare AB) were consecutively placed between 2003 and 2011 and followed-up to end of 2015. All peri-implantitis operations and late implant failures were consecutively identified. A logistic multivariate data analysis was performed to identify association between the complications and different clinical factors. Furthermore, data on prevalence on risk for inflammation and bone loss at implants ("peri-implantitis") and surgery related to peri-implantitis was collected for another reference group of about 10 000 implant patients during 3 consecutive years (2013-2015). RESULTS: Cumulative survival rates for implant operations without peri-implantitis surgery or implant failures were calculated to 96.4% (95% CI: 97.3-95.4) and 95.0% (95% CI: 96.0-94.1) after 10 years, respectively. Risk for "peri-implantitis surgery" showed a significant association (P < .05) to number of placed implants (hazard ratio [HR] 1.40; 95% CI: 1.24-1.59). Three factors showed significant association to risk for "late implant failures," where "treatment in lower jaw" had the highest risk; HR 2.03. "Overall implant failures" were associated to 4 significant factors where "surgeon" (HR 2.50) showed highest impact on risk. "Numbers of implants" and "bone resorption" at surgery were the 2 significant factors that were consistent for all the time periods of failures during follow-up (early/late/total). On an average 7.4% of examined patients in the reference group were denoted with highest risk group ("peri-implantitis") of which on an average 12.7% of these patients had surgery related to peri-implantitis. CONCLUSIONS: "The dentist" involved in the surgical and prosthetic rehabilitation of the implant patients, "number of implants" and degree of "bone resorption" seem to have most impact on overall implant complications and failures in the present patient group.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.294
GPT teacher head0.516
Teacher spread0.222 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations55
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related ResearchSame topicDental Implant Techniques and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207