A pattern of peri‐implantitis affecting middle implants in 3‐implant splinted prostheses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous investigators have noted an increased risk of crestal bone loss and failure of the middle implant of 3-implant-splinted (3-IS) fixed dental prostheses (FDPs). Possible causes have included ill-fitting prostheses, unhygienic prosthetic contours, and discrepancies in prosthetic platform heights. METHODS & RESULTS: We identified four cases in which the middle implant of a 3-IS multiunit FDP suffered advanced bone loss, ultimately leading to implant removal. While more than one possible risk for implant failure existed in each case, a common thread was that the prosthetic platform of the middle implant for all patients was coronally positioned relative to the corresponding mesial and/or distal implants. CONCLUSIONS: Splinting three adjacent implants into one prosthesis may add risk for a variety of reasons possibly including small differences in the heights of the three prosthetic tables. KEY POINTS: Why are these cases new information? Our observations suggest that discrepancies between implant prosthetic platforms supporting 3-implant splinted, multiunit FDPs may be an added risk factor for middle implant failure. What are the keys to successful management of these cases? It is possible that small differences in apico-coronal implant positioning with 3-implant splinted multiunit FDPs may affect the success of the middle implants. What are the primary limitations to success in these cases? There is limited literature involving precise protocols and long-term outcomes of 3-implant splinted implant restorations. Studies comparing 3-implant splinted FDPs to other configurations are needed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".