ArticlePeerJ2024
Observation of peri-implant bone loss rates in patients visiting dentist-A retrospective evaluation of patients of a faculty hospital for one year.
Article in PeerJ, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Many studies have been published on the relationship between different parameters with marginal bone loss around implants. The results of these studies vary, but some variables such as smoking or certain systemic conditions are more likely to predispose or exacerbate the resorption around implants. The aim of this study was to determine the rates of implants with radiographically detected marginal bone loss and to determine whether there is a relationship between the severity of destruction and certain risk factors like location of implant, restoration type, systemic condition, age, sex or smoking habits. Materials and Methods: Panoramic radiographs obtained for 1 year were examined. Patients with bone loss around the implant were classified according to the region of implant placement, type of restoration on implants, systemic diseases, and smoking habits. The rate of bone loss around the implants was recorded as the resorption score. Double and multiple comparison tests were applied to observe whether the resorption scores were related to the variables. Results: Of 17,352 patients, 1,465 had at least one implant, and 1,116 of these had no bone loss. A total of 181 patients (863 implants) included in the study, there was a weak correlation between age (
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.