Peri‐implant soft tissue status and crestal bone loss around immediately‐loaded narrow‐diameter implants placed in cigarette‐smokers: 6‐year follow‐up results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is hypothesized that in the long-term, soft tissue inflammation (reflected by increased scores of peri-implant probing-depth [PD]) and crestal bone loss (CBL) is higher in cigarette-smoker than nonsmokers with narrow diameter implants (NDIs). PURPOSE: The aim of the present 6-years' follow-up clinical observational study was to compare the peri-implant soft tissue inflammatory parameters (plaque index [PI], gingival index [GI], and PD) and CBL around immediately-loaded NDIs placed in cigarette-smokers and nonsmokers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In all groups, peri-implant GI, PI and PD were measured on six sites (distolingual/palatal, mesiolingual/palatal mesiobuccal, distobuccal, midlingual/palatal, and midbuccal) per implant. The CBL was gauged on digital bitewing x-rays, which were standardized using the long cone paralleling technique. CBL was demarcated as the vertical distance from 2 mm below the implant-abutment connection to the most crestally-positioned alveolar bone. RESULTS: All study-participants were male. Twenty-six cigarette smokers and twenty-five nonsmokers were included. The mean age of cigarette-smokers and nonsmokers was 45.5 ± 10.3 and 47.4 ± 9.4 years, respectively. Cigarette-smokers had a smoking history of 10.6 ± 0.4 pack years. Family history of tobacco usage was more often reported by cigarette-smokers (57.7%) than nonsmokers (20%). All cigarette-smokers and nonsmokers were aware that smoking is a risk-factor of loss of implant. Three (11.5%) of cigarette-smokers reported that they have attempted to quit smoking and 76.9% of cigarette-smokers (n = 20) reported that they had no intention to quit smoking in the future. The peri-implant P-I (P < .01), PD (P < .01) and mesial (P < .01), and distal (P < .01) CBL were significantly high in cigarette-smokers compared with nonsmokers. There was no statistically significant difference in GI among the groups. CONCLUSION: Cigarette-smoking enhances peri-implant soft tissue inflammation and increases CBL around immediately-loaded NDIs.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".