Continuous craniofacial growth in adult patients treated with dental implants in the anterior maxilla
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the Literature, there are several studies demonstrating that infraposition happens also in adult patients. PURPOSE: To conduct a retrospective evaluation of infraocclusion of implant-retained crowns in the anterior maxilla of adult patients and of the patient awareness and perception of the problem. MATERIAL AND METHODS: From January to June 2017, all adult patients who in the last 5 to 20 years had received in the same clinic implant restorations in the upper anterior maxilla were recalled to assess the presence of crown infraocclusion. Ninety-four patients were recalled. Twenty-six males, 34 females, with 76 implants were included in the study. According to the age, patients were divided into group I (<30 years: 12 males, 14 female) and group II (>30 years: 14 males, 20 females). Digital photographs, taken at the time of final prosthesis delivery (T0) and at time of the study examination (T1) were compared by three blinded previously calibrated examiners. Cast models of the dental arches were taken at T1 and served as a reference for infraocclusion measurements. According to the Literature, cases were included in three categories: infraocclusion <0.5 mm, infraocclusion 0.5-1.0 mm, and infraocclusion >1 mm. An awareness and perception score (APS) was prepared to classify patients in: "unaware patients" (0), "aware but disinterested patients" (1), "aware patients requiring explications" (2), and "aware patients requiring treatment" (3). RESULTS: Infraocclusion was present in 73.3% of all cases, 65.4% among males, 79.4% among females. Infraocclusion was less than 1 mm in 88.2% of males and in 85.1% of females. No significant differences were found for sex (P = .223). No significant differences were found for age: group I: 47.7%, group II: 52.2%, (P = .481). The overall APS was: "unaware patients" = 38.6%, "aware but disinterested patients" = 27.3%, "aware patients requiring explications" = 15.9%, "aware patients requiring treatment" = 18.2%. CONCLUSION: Within the limit of the study, infraocclusion might present a quite high prevalence. Data analysis failed to identify specific predisposing risk factors.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".