Retrospective Study of 1087 Anodized Implants Placed in Private Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: To evaluate risk indicators associated with implant failure and relationship between bone levels and soft-tissue health of anodized implants placed in private practice. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Partially or completely edentulous patients who received an anodized implant between 2003 and 2013 were included. Univariate and multivariate analysis was used to identify the relationship between study variables and implant failure. Mean marginal bone level changes (MBLΔ) were assessed using periapical radiographs. Periimplant soft tissue was evaluated using a modified bleeding index (implant mucosal index, IMI). RESULTS: A total of 1087 implants placed in 414 patients were followed for 3.9 ± 2.7 years. The cumulative implant survival rate after 10 years of function was 97.0%. Shorter (P = 0.0068) and maxillary implants (P = 0.0314) were associated with lower implant survival rate. Mean MBL decreased from -0.16 ± 0.43 mm at baseline to -0.53 ± 0.53 mm 8 to 10 years later. Implants with healthier mucosa were associated with less bone loss. CONCLUSIONS: Implants with an anodized surface showed a high long-term survival rate in a daily practice. Longer implants and implants placed in the mandible were associated with greater survival. Immediate loading and tapered design did not affect implant survival. Profuse multipoint bleeding and suppuration on recall were associated with greater bone loss.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".