Clinical and radiographic indices around narrow diameter implants placed in different glycemic‐level patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies assessing peri-implant clinical and marginal bone resorption (MBR) around narrow diameter implants (NDIs) placed in different glycemic levels are uninvestigated. OBJECTIVE: The present 3-year retrospective follow-up investigation was designed to explore clinical and radiographic status of NDIs placed in individuals with different glycemic control levels. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with serum hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels ≥6.5% (Group-1), 5.7%-6.4% (Group-2), and 4.0%-5.0% (Group-3) were included. Clinical indices evaluating bleeding on probing (BOP), plaque scores (PI), peri-implant probing depth (PD), and MBR were recorded around NDIs at 1-, 2-, and 3-year follow-up. Serum HbA1c test was carried out for all patients to assess the profile of glycosylated hemoglobin at 1 and 3 years of follow-up. RESULTS: A significant reduction in mean HbA1c levels from year 1 to year 3 follow-up period was seen in Group-1 only. PI varied from 0.40 in Group 1 at 2 year and 0.42 at 3-year follow-up to 0.18 at 2-year (P = 0.032) and 0.17 at 3-year (P = 0.018) follow-up, respectively. Greater BOP was noted in Group 1 (0.53) as compared with Group 2 (0.42) and Group 3 (0.21) (P = 0.048) at 3-year follow-up. PD after 3 year ranged from 2.04 mm in Group 3 to 2.32 mm in Group 1 that showed statistically significant difference (P = 0.037). No statistical significant differences were observed in MBR at any time point between the groups. CONCLUSION: The results of this short-term follow-up study indicate that NDIs show clinical and radiographic stability, provided oral cleanliness and glycemic levels are relatively maintained. Further long-term clinical studies are needed to evaluate implant stability over the period along with controlled glycemic status.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".