Short and ultra‐short (<6‐mm) locking‐taper implants supporting single crowns in posterior areas (part <scp>II</scp>): A 5‐year retrospective study on periodontally healthy patients and patients with a history of periodontitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Short and ultra-short implants implants supporting single crowns seem to demonstrate high percentages of survival and stable marginal bone levels at a mid-term follow-up. Nevertheless, insurgence of peri-implant complications still represents a critical issue, especially for patients with history of periodontitis. PURPOSE: The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate implant survival, marginal bone loss and peri-implant complications in 333 short and ultra-short implants, placed in periodontally healthy patients and patients with a history of periodontitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Implants were placed in the maxillary and mandibular posterior regions of 142 patients with (PP) and without (NPP) a history of periodontitis. Clinical and radiographic examinations were performed at 5-year recall appointments. RESULTS: Implants respectively placed in PP and NPP were: 35.68% and 42.50% in 8.0 mm-length group, 33.33% and 36.67% in 6.0 mm-length group, and 30.99% and 20.83% in 5.0 mm-length group. Implant-based survival after 5 years of follow-up was 95.77% for PP and 96.67% for NPP (p = 0.77). Regarding crestal bone level variations, average crestal bone loss was statistically different (p = 0.04) among PP (0.74 mm) and NPP (0.61 mm). Implants presenting signs of mucositis were 6.86% in PP and 7.76% in NPP (p = 0.76). Setting the threshold for excessive bone loss at 1 mm after 60 months, peri-implantitis prevalence was 7.84% in PP and 2.59% in NPP (p = 0.08). Overall implant success was 92.16% and 97.41%, respectively, for PP and NPP. CONCLUSIONS: Under strict maintenance program, five-year outcomes suggest that short and ultra-short locking-taper implants can be successfully restored with single crowns in the posterior jaws both in PP and NPP.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".