Clinical and radiographic peri‐implant outcomes of short dental implants placed in posterior jaws of patients with treated generalized aggressive periodontitis: A 3‐year follow‐up study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies assessing clinical and radiographic peri-implant parameters around short dental implants (SDIs) in treated generalized aggressive periodontitis (GAgP) patients are scant. OBJECTIVES: This 3-year follow-up study aimed to compare the clinical peri-implant and radiographic bone status around SDIs placed in partially edentulous patients treated for GAgP and periodontally healthy patients and to assess the implant success rate between both the groups. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of seven patients clinically diagnosed with GAgP and seven periodontally healthy patients was included in the clinical study. Forty-eight (29 maxilla; 19 mandible) and 11 (8 maxilla; 3 mandible) SDIs were placed in the GAgP group and healthy group, respectively. Plaque index (PI), bleeding on probing (BOP), probing depth (PD), and clinical attachment level (CAL) were recorded at six sites around all teeth and implants. Marginal bone loss (MBL) was studied incorporating in a specialized software and examined on a calibrated computer display screen with the help of an image analyzer. Patient satisfaction was recorded using a questionnaire sheet that contained questions regarding esthetics and function of the restorations. RESULTS: The implant survival rate after 3 years was 81.25%. BOP and CAL around SDIs of GAgP patients were significantly higher than in periodontally healthy subjects (P = .01) throughout the follow-up. CAL around the teeth of GAgP patients was significantly greater during the follow-up than around the teeth of periodontal healthy subjects (P = .02). The PI and BOP between the teeth and implants showed no statistical significant difference. The mean PD at teeth was 0.4 mm greater than at implants. Implants showed significantly increased attachment loss than teeth (P = .01). The overall mean satisfaction of visual analogue scale was 12.8 ± 1.45. CONCLUSION: This short-term follow-up study indicates SDIs remain functionally stable in the posterior jaws of treated GAgP patients.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".