Effect of alveolar ridge preservation on peri‐implant mucositis and peri‐implantitis prevalence: A multicenter, cross‐sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) is a procedure with the aim to reduce bone resorption that occurs after tooth extraction, facilitating the following implant placement. The aim of this cross-sectional study was to evaluate the prevalence of mucositis and peri-implantitis around implants inserted in sites treated with ARP and to investigate possible risk factors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who received at least one dental implant inserted in a grafted socket were considered eligible for this study. Patients were recalled for a follow-up visit; medical history, clinical and demographic data were collected. Univariate logistic regression analyses have been performed for both implant-level and patient-level variables. Indeed, moderation analysis was used to investigate the indirect relationship between age and marginal bone level. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients who received 61 implants were enrolled in this cross-sectional study. Thirty-three implants were classified as "healthy" (54.1%), 23 implants showed signs of peri-implant mucositis (37.7%), and 5 implants were diagnosed with peri-implantitis (8.2%). Data analyzed at the patient level showed that 49% of the patients were healthy, 45.1% of the patients had mucositis and 5.9% of the patients were affected by peri-implantitis. Mandibular sites and type III grafted sockets showed a significant association with peri-implantitis; in addition, a history of periodontitis and an increase in age showed higher risks of developing mucositis or peri-implantitis. CONCLUSIONS: Implants inserted in grafted sockets showed favorable rates of healthy implants in the long term. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The ridge preservation procedures do not seem to increase the risk of developing mucositis or peri-implantitis.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".