The effect of single tooth implant restorations on the survival, morbidity, pulpal, and periapical health of adjacent teeth: A chart review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine whether the placement and restoration of a single tooth posterior implant affects the survival, morbidity, pulpal, and periapical health of adjacent natural teeth. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective chart review identified patients who received single posterior tooth implants between August 2004 and July 2015 at the UNC SOD and met the study inclusion criteria. Preoperative and postoperative records were reviewed; survival and changes in coronal, pulpal, and periapical status of teeth adjacent to the implant and contralateral tooth were recorded. Dichotomous survival, restoration, and retreatment outcomes were analyzed using conditional logistic regression with patient as strata and implant versus control as the predictor. Exact odds ratio estimates and the 95% confidence intervals were obtained for the relationship of implant versus control side and outcomes. RESULTS: Five hundred and fifty-five sites with follow-up time averaging 5 years ± 30.8 months were reviewed. Teeth adjacent to implants had 1.75 (95% CI: 1.17, 2.64) times the odds of restorative retreatments as compared to controls (P = .005). On the implant side, 48 adjacent teeth (4.5%) were more heavily restored at follow up, while 84 (7.9%) experienced retreatment with comparable number of surfaces restored. On the contralateral side, 54 adjacent teeth (5.0%) were more heavily restored, and 56 (5.2%) experienced comparable levels of retreatment. In addition, 17 (1.7%) implant adjacent teeth required root canal treatment, compared to 12 (1.2%) on the contralateral side; 1 implant adjacent tooth required root canal retreatment. Forty-two teeth (3.8%) adjacent to implants were lost, compared to 35 (3.2%) adjacent to natural teeth. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence for restorative retreatment was significantly higher on teeth adjacent to implant restorations as compared to the contralateral controls. There were no significant differences in the survival, morbidity, pulpal, or periapical health of teeth adjacent to single tooth implants compared to those adjacent to the contralateral natural tooth.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".