The Effect of Implantoplasty on Fracture Resistance and Implant Surface Changes: An In Vitro and Finite Element Analysis Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Implantoplasty can be performed on implants diagnosed with peri-implantitis to facilitate implant decontamination and improve access for oral home care. However, its effect on the mechanical strength of the implant is still uncertain. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of implantoplasty on the fracture resistance of dental implants with various degrees of bone loss, as well as its surface changes. METHODS: Eighty 4.2 × 13 mm conical connection dental implants were allocated evenly into four groups based on the bone defect morphology: circumferential or semi-circumferential, and 3 or 5 mm vertical height. Half of the implants underwent implantoplasty with tungsten carbide finishing burs. Weight, volume, and surface roughness of the implants were recorded prior to and after instrumentation. All implants were subjected to static loading to failure or fracture and the implant surfaces were then analyzed using optical microscopy. Finite element analysis was carried out to assess the stress pattern on dental implants after implantoplasty. RESULTS: Implantoplasty significantly reduced the fracture resistance of implants with all defect morphologies, aside from those with 3 mm of circumferential bone loss. Implants with 5 mm of peri-implant bone loss also experienced significantly reduced fracture resistance compared to the 3 mm group. Significant decrease in fracture resistance was only observed between the circumferential and semi-circumferential groups with 5 mm of bone loss. Surface roughness was also significantly reduced following implantoplasty. The results from finite element analysis revealed a change in pattern of stress concentration in the implant after implantoplasty. CONCLUSION: Implantoplasty negatively impacted the fracture resistance of standard diameter dental implants in most scenarios. The increase in exposed implant length resulted in a decrease in fracture resistance. This increase in fracture risk should be considered prior to implantoplasty, especially in implants with more advanced bone loss.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".