The consequences and outcomes associated with dental implants encroaching on adjacent teeth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dental implant placement carries a risk of iatrogenic damage to adjacent root surfaces. PURPOSE: To classify and understand different types of trauma to the tooth root body by dental implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective case series included 43 implants placed between February 2017 and June 2020 that had primary stability and were in a position that accidentally invaded the adjacent teeth. The type and degree of the injury were evaluated clinically and radiographically. Tenderness, mobility, and sensitivity tests of the injured teeth were conducted at different visits. Implant failure was confirmed by the presence of implant mobility during the healing period. RESULTS: Overall, 43 patients had root injuries due to dental implant surgeries. Regarding the 43 injured roots, 32 developed transient tenderness to percussion, 16 developed variable degrees of resorption in the cementum, three lost pulp sensitivity and one had persistent tenderness to percussion. No injured teeth were lost. In three patients, implant periapical lesions were confirmed radiographically as radiolucency near the apex of the involved implants. Out of the 43 implants, 11 failed and were removed within 6 months, with an implant failure rate of (25%). CONCLUSIONS: Root damage after implant surgery varies depending on the type and severity of injury. Periodic clinical and radiographical examination is necessary to monitor root resorption and implant integration and to rule out pulp necrosis.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".