Long‐term treatment outcomes of single maxillary buccal peri‐implant soft tissue dehiscences: A 10‐year prospective study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: To evaluate the 10-year clinical outcomes following surgical treatment of shallow isolated peri-implant soft-tissue dehiscences (PSTD) at single tissue level dental implants. METHODS: The baseline population included 16 patients (16 implants) displaying an isolated peri-implant maxillary buccal soft-tissue dehiscence. The recipient bed was prepared with a minimally-invasive split-thickness flap limited to the buccal aspect to stabilize the tuberosity connective tissue graft (CTG) onto the periosteum. At the end of treatment, patients were enrolled in an individualized supportive peri-implant care (SPC) program. The aesthetic outcome was evaluated on photographs by three clinicians using a visual analog scale (VAS). RESULTS: SPC during the 10-years proceeded uneventfully in all patients. A total of 12 patients completed the 10-year examination, as 3 patients dropped-out and 1 implant was lost. Complete PSTD coverage was obtained at 7 implant sites (i.e., 58%) while the mean PSTD coverage amounted to 89.6% ± 17.1% without statistically significant differences between 1 and 10 years (p > 0.05). Stable peri-implant parameters (i.e., PD and BoP) and full-mouth scores (i.e., FMPS, FMBS) were recorded throughout the observation period (p > 0.05). The aesthetic improvements obtained in the short-term were maintained up to 10 years. CONCLUSION: Within their limits, the present results indicate that the proposed surgical technique is a simple and reliable treatment option for the treatment of single maxillary buccal PSTDs in selected cases with positive results up to 10 years in patients under regular SPC (NCT04983758-this clinical trial was not registered prior to participant recruitment).
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".