Survival of adjacent‐dental‐implants in prediabetic and systemically healthy subjects at 5‐years follow‐up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Long-term survival of adjacent dental implants (ADI) in prediabetic patients remained uninvestigated. PURPOSE: This 5 years' follow-up clinical study compared the survival of adjacent implants in prediabetic and nondiabetic subjects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prediabetic (group-A) and nondiabetic (group-B) subjects having undergone dental rehabilitation using ADI were assessed. Data about sex, age treatment and period (in years) since diagnosis of prediabetes, and family history of diabetes was gathered and haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels were recorded. Dental implant related data (dimensions, loading protocol, surface characteristics, restoration type, and duration in function) was recorded. Depth of probing (PD), bleeding-on-probing (BOP), and plaque index (PI) were measured and mesial and distal crestal bone loss (CBL) were recorded. P values less than .05 were contemplated as statistically-significant. RESULTS: Seventy-nine male individuals (39 in group-A and 40 in group-B) were included. Subjects in groups -A and -B were 54.3 ± 3.6 and 51.2 ± 2.4 years old, respectively. In group-A, subjects were diagnosed with prediabetes 5.4 ± 0.2 years ago. Patients in group-A more often had a family history of diabetes than group-B. Thirty-nine and 40 ADI were placed in patients in groups -A and -B, respectively. Tooth-brushing once daily was reported by 79.5% and 82.5% individuals in groups -A and -B, respectively. Peri-implant PI (P<.001), BOP (P<.001), PD (P<.001), mesial (P<.001), and distal (P<.001) CBL and HbA1c levels (P<.001) were higher in group-A than group-B. The implant survival rate in group-A and group-B was 100% and 100%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Although ADI can survive in prediabetic patients in the long-term; soft-tissue inflammation and CBL are worse around adjacent implants in these patients compared with nondiabetic controls.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".