Clinical, radiographic, and restorative peri‐implant measurements of narrow and standard diameter implants in obese and nonobese patients: A 3‐year retrospective follow‐up study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is dearth of studies assessing clinical, restorative, and radiographic peri-implant outcomes around narrow diameter implants (NDIs) and standard diameter implants (SDIs) in obese and nonobese subjects. OBJECTIVE: To assess clinical, restorative, and radiographic parameters of NDIs and SDIs placed in obese and nonobese individuals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Obese and nonobese patients requiring NDIs and SDIs in the anterior maxilla/mandible were included. Based on the implant diameter, participants were further divided into two subgroups: (a) NDIs (3.3 mm) and (b) SDIs (4.1 mm). Peri-implant clinical measurements including plaque index (PI), bleeding on probing (BOP), probing depth (PD), and radiographic crestal bone loss (CBL) were evaluated around NDIs and SDIs at 1 and 3-year follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 70 patients (35 obese and 35 nonobese) were included. Only BOP showed statistically significant differences between both the groups at patient level at 1 and 3-year follow-up (P < .05). There was no statistically significant difference in PI and PD around NDIs and SDIs between obese and nonobase patients. Statistical significant differences were observed in the total CBL around NDIs and RDIs among obese and nonbase subjects at 3 year follow-up (P < .05). CONCLUSION: Both NDIs and SDIs show consistent clinical stability among obese and nonobase patients. Higher amount of bone loss was observed in obese patients compared to nonobase patients despite regular hygiene maintenance.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".