MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Interproximal contact loss in a retrospective cross-sectional study of 4325 implants: Distribution and incidence and the effect on bone loss and peri-implant soft tissue

2019· article· en· W2921982256 on OpenAlex
David French, Mitchel Naito, Bernie Linke

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Prosthetic Dentistry · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDentistryMedicineImplantPremolarSoft tissueMolarIncidence (geometry)Retrospective cohort studyRadiographyCross-sectional studyOrthodonticsSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Interproximal contact loss (ICL) is a common finding between implant restorations and teeth, yet few reports have been published on incidence or related complications. PURPOSE: The purpose of this cross-sectional retrospective study was to measure the ICL of 4325 implants, including single and multiple splinted restorations. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Data on 4325 implants were extracted from patient records on ICL, time of follow-up, implant location, and sex of the participant for whom implants were placed in a private practice between 1999 and 2016. Periapical radiographs were used to evaluate the crestal bone level (CBL), whereas peri-implant soft tissues were evaluated with the implant mucosal index (IMI). Measurements (ICL, IMI, and CBL) were evaluated with an average follow-up of 4.5 years (range: 0.25 to 21 years). ICL was assessed in relation to the implant location and sex and grouped by the last clinical recall (1, 2-3, 4-5, 6-7, or 8+ years) to evaluate the effect of time. Data were analyzed by the chi-square test (α=.05). RESULTS: Overall, 17% of implants had ICL, and this significantly increased over time from 11% at 1 year to 29% at ≥8 years (chi-square: 123.8, P<.001). Mandibular implants had more ICL (20%) than maxillary implants (15%) (chi-square: 17.5, P<.001), whereas no difference was found between molar and premolar sites or male and female participants. There was no significant effect of ICL on CBL over time, but there was an increase in inflammation with higher IMI scores at ICL sites. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of implant ICL was found to be 17%, and ICL was found to increase over time up to 27% at ≥8 years of follow-up. ICL was more common in posterior and mandibular sites. ICL was shown to increase soft tissue inflammation but was not found to affect implant CBLs.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.105
Threshold uncertainty score0.611

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.297 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it