Are marginal bone level changes around dental implants due to infection?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Peri-implant bone level values have been used as the clinical standard of reference to describe the status of a dental implant. Reduction of marginal bone levels in association with bleeding on probing have been claimed to be a sign of pathology and an indication of treatment needs. PURPOSE: To assess the available evidence that peri-implant bone loss is caused by infection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This article is a narrative review on the interpretation of marginal bone level changes around dental implants as a consequence of infection. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence that plaque accumulation induces an inflammatory reaction in the peri-implant soft tissues and that resumption of plaque control measures results in the reduction of the inflammation. Since plaque is always present in the oral cavity, a cause-effect relationship between plaque accumulation and peri-implantitis, defined as inflammation of the peri-implant soft tissues associated with marginal bone loss has been difficult to validate and has not been proven so far. There is no evidence of the mechanisms involved in the tissue reactions resulting in the conversion from a state of an inevitable inflammation contained in the soft tissues to a state of inflammation involving the loss of peri-implant marginal bone. There is today no consensus whether implants should be expected to be surrounded by tissues which are completely free from inflammation, or that an "immune-driven", chronic, subclinical inflammation should be expected at the foreign body implant. The infectious origin theory appears to be mainly supported by ligature-induced experimental peri-implantitis investigations in animal models that suffer of several methodological problems, and therefore, provide misleading information with regards to human clinical applications in large, routine populations.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".