Clinical outcomes of dental implants placed in fresh sockets: A five-year retrospective study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This retrospective clinical study aimed to evaluate the implants placed in fresh sockets and investigate the effect of varied oral health conditions and treatment plan details on the clinical and radiographic outcomes. Materials and methods: Fifty-nine participants (102 implants) were included in this study. Four variables, including mean probing depth (PD), mean marginal bone loss (MBL), pink esthetic score (PES), and patient satisfaction, were significant dependent variables, and the effects of independent variables on these four items were studied. The data were analyzed by the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using a statistical software. Results: The mean follow-up period was 4.75 ± 1.74 years, and the mean MBL was 1.21 ± 0.81 mm. The survival rate was 97 %. There were significant effects of the finish line site, keratinized gingival width, and attached gingival width on PD after adjusting the factors. Also, the implant brand, plaque index, and uncemented prosthesis affected MBL significantly. In addition, significant effects of the surgeon, implant brand, and proximal contact on PES were found. Conclusion: More PD was found around restorations with a finish line site > 1.5 mm subgingival. Sufficient attached gingiva was a more effective factor on PD than keratinized gingiva. Implants with more plaque scores showed more MBL.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".