Long term clinical performance of 10 871 dental implants with up to 22 years of follow‐up: A cohort study in 4247 patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The present retrospective study was aimed to assess the long-term clinical performance of dental implants in a cohort study of 4247 patients. METHODS: A longitudinal observational cohort study was done on all implants performed by a single periodontist from July 1995 to April 2019. The main outcome variables of this study were implant failure and marginal bone level around implants. RESULTS: The study participants received a total of 10 871 implants with a mean of 2.56 implants per patient. The cohort was followed-up to 22.2 years (mean = 4.5 ± 4.2). Among the 4247 patients of the current study, 140 patients (3.3%) experienced a combined total of 178 implant failures. According to life table analysis, at the implant level the cumulative survival rate at 3, 5, 10, and 15 years was 98.9%, 98.5%, 96.8%, and 94.0%, respectively while at patient level was 97.4%, 96.7%, 92.5%, and 86% at 3, 5, 10, and 15 years. Patients with multiple units were at a greater risk for having an implant failure. Baseline bone level was 0.09 ± 0.28 mm while at 8-10 years the mean bone level was 0.49 ± 0.74 mm. The incidence of peri-implant mucositis at the implant level was 9.4% at 2-3 years, 9.3% at 4-5 years, 12.1% at 6-7 years, and 11.9% at 8-10 years. The incidence of peri-implantitis was 2%, 2.6%, 3.2%, and 7.1% at 2-3, 4-5, 6-7, and 8-10 years, respectively. Cigarette smoking and diabetes mellitus were positively correlated with implant failure. CONCLUSIONS: Though the results are promising and encouraging in terms of survival and bone level over time, it is important to emphasize the potential risk factors and consider them prior to dental implant placement.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".