Comparison of clinical and radiographic peri‐implant parameters among obese and non‐obese patients: A 5‐year study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is postulated that peri-implant parameters are worse in obese individuals as compared to nonobese. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present 5-year longitudinal study was to analyze and compare the changes in clinical and radiographic peri-implant parameters among obese and non-obese patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: and 18 non-obese controls were included. All patients were indicated for single tooth maxillary or mandibular molar replacement with the adjacent teeth intact. Peri-implant clinical (plaque index [PI], bleeding on probing [BOP], probing depth [PD]) and radiographic (marginal bone loss [MBL]) parameters were measured at 12, 24, and 60 months of follow-up. RESULTS: All peri-implant parameters showed statistically significant difference between obese and non-obese individuals. Obese group recorded significant higher BOP, PD, and MBL at different observation times. Probing depth and MBL increased significantly with advance of time in both groups. After 60 months of follow-up period, greater PI and BOP was observed in obese patients (P < 0.01). At 60 months follow-up period, obese patients showed significant increased PD (3.69 mm) as compared to non-obese individuals (2.46 mm). Marginal bone loss in non-obese individuals varied from 0.30 mm after 12 months, reaching 0.55 mm after 60 months of follow-up period, while in obese patients MBL values went from 0.36 mm after 12 months to 0.91 mm at 60 months follow-up (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with obesity are at risk of increased localized peri-implant soft and hard tissue inflammation. It is recommended that clinicians should educate obese patients about risk of increased peri-implant tissue inflammation and susceptibility to bone loss and stipulate stringent oral hygiene care for ideal peri-implant health.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".