Early marginal bone loss around dental implants to define success in implant dentistry: A retrospective study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to establish an objective criterion in terms of marginal bone level (MBL) to know the prognosis of an implant. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A group of 176 patients in whom 590 implants were placed were included in this retrospective study. Patients older than 18 years, presenting either Kennedy class I or II edentulous section, or totally edentulous at least in one of the dental arches were included in this study. Those with any type of disturbance able to alter bone metabolism or with nontreated periodontal disease were excluded. Data on radiographic MBL at loading, 6 and 18 months later, age, gender, smoking habits, history of periodontitis, bone substratum, implant, and prosthetic features were recorded. Nonparametric receiver operating curves (ROC) were constructed for the MBL at 18 months in order to establish a distinction among high bone loser (HBL) and low bone loser (LBL) implants. Differences as a function of main variables were also determined, particularly abutment height and periodontal disease. RESULTS: HBL implants lost at least 0.48 mm of MBL 6 months after loading; they reached at least 2 mm of MBL 18 months after loading. MBL rate followed a nonlinear trend, except in implants restored over long prosthetic abutments and in patients with history of severe periodontitis; in whom the rate of MBL over the time was nearly zero. CONCLUSION: Implants that lose more than 0.5 mm of marginal bone 6 months after loading are at great risk of not being radiographically successful anymore. Therefore, 0.5 mm of MBL is proposed as a distinctive and objective criterion of success in Implant Dentistry within a 6-month follow-up period. A prosthetic abutment height ≥2 mm resulted the most protective factor in the peri-implant bone maintenance.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".