Spontaneous progression of experimental peri‐implantitis in augmented and pristine bone: A pre‐clinical in vivo study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the progression of experimental peri-implantitis around different implants placed in augmented and pristine sites. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six labrador dogs were used. Three months after tooth extraction, four implants with different surface modifications were installed on each side of the mandible. A standard osteotomy was applied on one side, while on the contralateral side the osteotomy was modified, resulting in a gap between the implant and the bone wall. The gap was filled with a bone substitute and covered by a resorbable membrane. Three months after implant installation, implants were exposed and healing abutments were connected. Two months later, oral hygiene procedures were abandoned and a cotton ligature was placed in a submarginal position around the neck of all implants and kept in place for 4 weeks. Following ligature removal, plaque formation continued for 6 months (spontaneous progression period). Radiographs were obtained throughout the experiment, and biopsies were collected and prepared for histological evaluation at the end of the spontaneous progression period. RESULTS: Differences in bone loss during the spontaneous progression period between pristine and augmented sites were small. The size and vertical dimension of the peri-implantitis lesion were larger at augmented than at pristine sites. Implants with non-modified surfaces exhibited smaller amounts of bone loss and smaller dimensions of peri-implantitis lesions than implants with modified surfaces. CONCLUSION: Small differences in spontaneous progression of peri-implantitis were detected between pristine and augmented sites. Implants with modified surfaces exhibited more bone loss and larger lesions than implants with non-modified surfaces, irrespective of the type of surrounding bone.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".