MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4407411213 · doi:10.1111/cid.70012

Peri‐Implant Health and Perfusion Parameters in Patients After Microvascular Jaw Reconstruction: A Clinical Cohort Study

2025· article· en· W4407411213 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Marie Sophie Katz, Mark Ooms, Marius Heitzer, Anna Bock, Nils Vohl, Kristian Kniha, Frank Hölzle, Ali Modabber

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMucositisBleeding on probingImplantPerfusionPeri-implantitisDentistryBlood flowPeriSurgeryInternal medicinePeriodontitisChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to evaluate perfusion parameters and clinical features of healthy implants and implants affected by peri-implant disease in patients who had undergone microvascular jaw reconstruction. METHODS: A total of 25 patients with 92 implants placed in microvascular transplants were included. Of these, 68 implants showed healthy peri-implant tissue, 12 were affected by peri-implant mucositis, and 12 were diagnosed with peri-implantitis. Peri-implant perfusion was measured mesially and distally at the implant shoulder using laser Doppler flowmetry and tissue spectrophotometry (LDF-TS), followed by a clinical evaluation, including measurement of probing depths, bleeding on probing (BOP), plaque index, biotype, type of implant, the restoration and the presence of keratinized tissue. Perfusion parameters were compared between the healthy implants and the implants with peri-implant disease based on the conventional BOP-based diagnosis of peri-implantitis, and the associations between the perfusion values and clinical measurements were analyzed. Optimal cut-off values for predicting peri-implantitis were calculated with receiver operating characteristics. RESULTS: The mean relative amount of hemoglobin and mean blood flow were significantly different between healthy implants and implants with peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis (p = 0.003 and p = 0.002, respectively). However, there are interindividual differences that appear to influence blood flow values as well. When a linear mixed regression model was applied, including the patient as a random variable, the difference in blood flow was no longer statistically significant (p = 0.400). Still, the optimal cut-off value of mean blood flow for predicting peri-implantitis was determined to be > 46.5 AU (AUC = 0.788; p < 0.001; CI = 0.695-0.881; sensitivity = 1.00, specificity = 0.60). CONCLUSION: Implants in microvascular flaps are particularly vulnerable to peri-implant disease. Risk factors are the lack of keratinized peri-implant tissue, fixed restorations, bone-level implants, and high plaque levels. As a noninvasive and objective method, LDF-TS can contribute to risk assessment by evaluating perfusion parameters and help detect the early onset of peri-implant disease.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.070
GPT teacher head0.459
Teacher spread0.389 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research→Same topicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→