Comparison of peri‐implant clinical and radiographic status around short (6 mm in length) dental implants placed in cigarette‐smokers and never‐smokers: Six‐year follow‐up results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is hypothesized that peri-implant clinical and radiographic inflammatory parameters (probing depth [PD], bleeding on probing [BOP] and plaque index [PI]; and radiographic (crestal bone loss [CBL]) are worse among cigarette-smokers (CS) compared with never-smokers (NS) with short implants. PURPOSE: The present 6-year follow-up retrospective study compared the peri-implant clinical and radiographic parameters in CS and NS with short dental implants (6 mm in length). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-six male individuals were included. These individuals divided into 2 groups as follows: (a) Group-1: 29 self-reported systemically healthy CS with 48 short-implants; and (b) Group-2: 27 self-reported systemically healthy NS with 43 short implants. Peri-implant PD, PI, BOP, and CBL were measured. Group comparisons were done using the Kruskal-Wallis test and sample size was estimated. Level of significance was set at P values < .05. RESULTS: In groups 1 and 2, the follow-up durations were 6.2 ± 0.1 years and 6.1 ± 0.3 years, respectively. A cigarette smoking history of 8.9 ± 3.6 pack years was reported by individuals in Group-1. At follow-up, scores of peri-implant PD, BOP, PI, and mesial and distal CBL were comparable around short implants in both groups. CONCLUSION: Under strict oral hygiene maintenance protocols, short dental implants can remain functionally stable in CS in a manner similar to NS.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".