Comparison of clinical peri‐implant indices and crestal bone levels around narrow and regular diameter implants placed in diabetic and non‐diabetic patients: A 3‐year follow‐up study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies evaluating and comparing clinical and radiographic peri-implant indices around narrow diameter implants (NDIs; <3.3 mm) and regular diameter implants (RDIs) in type-2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and non-diabetic individuals are deficient. OBJECTIVE: To estimate and compare the clinical and radiographic indices around NDIs and RDIs placed in T2DM and non-diabetic patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty-six patients requiring implant surgery in the posterior mandible were divided into two groups (42 T2DM and 44 non-diabetic individuals). Patients were further categorized into two subgroups on the basis of diameter of implants: (1) patients with NDIs (3.3 mm ø) and (2) patients with RDIs (4.1 mm ø). Clinical indices evaluating plaque index (PI), bleeding on probing (BOP), probing depth (PD), and crestal bone levels (CBL) were recorded around all dental implants at 18 and 36 months follow up. Serum hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) test was carried out for both groups to assess the profile of glycosylated hemoglobin at baseline, 18 and 36 months of follow up. RESULTS: The mean age of patients in T2DM group and non-diabetic group was 45.2 and 41.6 years, respectively. At 18 and 36 months follow up, mean HbA1c levels were 6.5% and 4.5% and 6.7% and 4.5% in T2DM and non-diabetic individuals, respectively. A statistically significant reduction in mean HbA1c levels from the baseline to respective follow-up periods were seen in T2DM patients. There was no statistically significant difference in the overall mean scores of PI, BOP, PD, and CBL around NDIs and RDIs among T2DM and non-diabetic patients at 18 and 36 months of follow up. CONCLUSION: NDIs show reliable clinical stability and radiographic bone levels as RDIs placed in T2DM and non-diabetic individuals, provided oral hygiene and glycemic status are strictly maintained.
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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".