A retrospective review of implant treatment outcomes placed between 2009 and 2018 by the graduate periodontics residents at the University of British Columbia, Dental Clinic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: This study was conducted to examine the rates and potential predictors of implant failures and peri-implant condition associated with treatments provided by the periodontal residents at the graduate dental clinic at the University of British Columbia (UBC). Materials and methods: A retrospective review of information from dental charts of patients who received dental implants at the UBC graduate clinic between January 1st, 2009, and December 31st, 2018, by the graduate periodontics residents. Results: During the review period, 597 patients received a total of 1494 dental implants. The majority of potential risk indicators we examined did not have statistically significant associations with either implant failures or peri-implant condition. Conclusion: The implant failure rate was lower than the failure rate reported in a previous retrospective study done in the same university setting. To ensure the proper documentation of all cases, the standardized protocol for information recording, including follow-ups, should be implemented.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".