Peri‐implant tissue healing at implants with different designs and placement protocols: An experimental study in dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the peri-implant tissue response to subcrestal or crestal placement of implants with or without "platform-switched" implant/abutment connections. MATERIAL AND METHODS: On each side of the mandible in six Labrador dogs, two "platform-switched" (PS) implants and two implants with matching implant/abutment diameters (PM) were placed in a crestal or a 1.5 mm subcrestal position. Sulcus formers/abutments were connected, baseline radiographs obtained and the distance between the abutment-fixture junction (A/F) and the marginal bone level (B) was determined. Five months later, radiographic and clinical examinations were repeated and biopsies were obtained and processed for histological analysis. RESULTS: The radiographic analysis showed that marginal bone level changes occurred during the first observation period (13 weeks). PS-implants showed minor marginal bone level alterations during the full observation period (20 weeks), regardless of placement depth. For PM-implants, placement had a significant impact on bone level changes; crestal placement resulted in a mean bone loss of 0.4 mm and subcrestal placement in a 1.5 mm bone loss. The histometric measurements resulted in a distance A/F-B of 0.6 and 0.0 mm for PS implants, placed in a crestal or subcrestal position, respectively. The corresponding distance at PM-implants was 1.5 mm irrespective of placement protocol. The peri-implant mucosa was thicker at subcrestally placed implants as compared to a crestal placement. CONCLUSIONS: Bone remodeling occurred within the early healing phase. During the full 20 weeks of observation, PS-implants demonstrated significantly less crestal bone loss compared to PM-implants.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".