Progressive bone loss and bleeding on probing: A cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim To investigate whether a progressive marginal bone loss (PMBL) occurring beyond the initial bone remodeling (IBR) is linked with bleeding on probing. Materials and Methods A total of 70 partially edentulous patients exhibiting 112 two‐piece bone‐level implants were included in this retrospective study. Panoramic radiographs were obtained after implant insertion (T0), after delivery of a final prosthetic restoration (T1) and subsequently during the 1‐(T2), 5‐(T3), 10‐(T4), and 15‐years (T5) follow‐up visits. At each time point, radiographic marginal bone levels were assessed from the implant shoulder to the first bone‐to‐implant contact at mesial and distal aspects. The IBR was defined as a bone loss occurring up to prosthesis delivery, that is, from T0 to T1. The PMBL was defined as bone loss occurring after T1. At T2, T3, T4, and T5, the presence or absence of bleeding on probing (BOP) was recorded at four sites. A median regression with mixed models was performed to assess the difference of PMBL in PMBL + BOP+ and PBML + BOP− groups. Results Over the mean implant functioning time of 4.44 ± 4.91 years, 38 (34%) implants showed no PBML, whereas 74 (66%) implants featured PMBL. Of these, 35 (47%) and 39 (53%) implants were assigned to the PMBL + BOP− and PMBL + BOP+ groups, respectively. The mean PMBL after 1, 5, 10, and 15 years were comparable between implants featuring PMBL with or without BOP. At 1 year, BOP intensity significantly correlated PMBL, with each increase in one BOP‐positive site being associated with increase in PMBL by 0.55 mm (p = 0.038), whereas this association was not found at 5, 10, and 15 years. The IBR values in the no PBML, PMBL + BOP+, and PBML + BOP− groups were −0.24 ± 0.31, −0.41 ± 0.59, and −0.24 ± 0.33 mm, respectively, with no significant differences found among the groups. Conclusion Progressive bone loss at implant sites is not always linked with bleeding on probing.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".