Early crestal bone loss around implants placed at previously failed sites compared with initially integrated implants: A retrospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is minimal information on early crestal bone loss (CBL) associated with implants placed at failed sites. PURPOSE: This retrospective cohort study aimed to evaluate CBL of surviving and restored implants placed at previously failed sites (replaced implants [RIs]) compared to that of implants initially integrated and restored (pristine implants [PIs]), within the same subjects from implant placement to 17 months post-delivery of restoration. METHODS: Subjects who had both PI(s) and RI(s) were recruited. The following data were retrieved: patient demographics, implant locations, types of implant failure, use of bone graft procedure(s), and intraoral radiographs at implant placement (T0), restoration delivery (T1), and the post-restoration follow-up (T2). A blinded evaluator measured crestal bone levels at T0, T1, and T2. RESULTS: Forty-four implants (22 in the RI and 22 in the PI group) from the 22 subjects were reviewed. The 22 implants in the RI group were placed either at early failure (17) or late failure (5) sites. There was a 4.6 times higher likelihood of bone graft procedures performed in association with RIs compared to PIs when using a generalized linear mixed model. Differences in crestal bone levels were compared between the two groups at each time point. There were no significant differences in the mesial and mean crestal bone levels between the PI and RI groups. The RI group exhibited lower crestal bone levels on the distal side compared to the PI group at all time points. However, this difference was due to crestal bone level at T0 (p = 0.039) not due to implant replacement (p = 0.413) or bone graft procedure (p = 0.302) when using mixed regression modeling. CONCLUSION: The effect of replacements of implants at failed sites on CBL was not significant. RIs, once integrated, exhibited the same pattern of CBL as pristine implants.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".