MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4385553128 · doi:10.1038/s41432-023-00913-4

Lack of keratinized mucosa increases peri-implantitis risk

2023· letter· en· W4385553128 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueEvidence-Based Dentistry · 2023
Typeletter
Langueen
DomaineDentistry
ThématiqueDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesUniversity of Bern
Mots-clésPeri-implantitisDentistryMedicineMEDLINEScopusMeta-analysisCritical appraisalOdds ratioSystematic reviewImplantSurgeryPathology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Design A systematic appraisal and statistical aggregation of primary studies in humans. Data sources The researchers utilized PubMed (Medline) and Scopus databases as the primary data sources for this study. They performed a comprehensive literature search based on free keywords and Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms to enhance the search accuracy. The database search was concluded on November 13, 2022. Furthermore, a meticulous examination of the references cited in the selected studies was conducted to identify additional relevant articles that could be incorporated into the analysis. Study selection The systematic review focused on partially or fully edentulous patients receiving dental implants and aimed to determine if the lack of keratinized mucosa at the implant site increased the risk of peri-implantitis compared to patients with adequate keratinized mucosa. Human studies with a minimum of 100 implants, cross-sectional, cohort, or case-control designs, and a follow-up period of at least one year were included. Studies lacking a clear case definition or information on peri-implantitis and those that did not investigate keratinized mucosa as a risk indicator were excluded. Data extraction and synthesis Two reviewers independently utilized a systematic review screening website (Rayyan, Qatar Computing Research Institute, Qatar Foundation) to select potential articles, and conflicts were resolved through discussion or consultation with a third reviewer. The data extraction process involved recording information from the included articles, such as study design, patient and implant numbers, prosthesis type (fixed or removable), follow-up duration, peri-implantitis case definition, prevalence at patient and implant levels, keratinized mucosa cutoff value, odds ratio (OR) of peri-implantitis considering keratinized mucosa, and conclusions on the potential effect of keratinized mucosa from each study. The Newcastle Ottawa scale (NOS) and a modified version of NOS were used, respectively, to assess the quality of cohort and cross-sectional studies. Studies scoring below 6 out of 9 points were classified as low quality. For the meta-analysis, the relationship between peri-implantitis and keratinized mucosa was evaluated using the odds ratio (OR) and standard error (SE). Heterogeneity was assessed through the Chi 2 test and I 2 index, determining whether a random-effects or fixed-effects model should be applied. Subgroup and cluster analyses were conducted based on specific criteria, and forest plots and funnel plots were generated to visualize results and identify potential study bias. Sensitivity analysis was performed to verify the robustness of the meta-analysis, with statistical significance set at p < 0.05. The Review Manager (RevMan) software facilitated data analysis. The GRADE rating system was used to determine the level of evidence, considering factors such as bias risk, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness, and publication bias. The certainty of the evidence was evaluated based on the overall outcomes of analyzed subgroups. Results Twenty-two primary studies were identified, and a meta-analysis was conducted on 16 cross-sectional studies. The prevalence of peri-implantitis ranged from 6.68% to 62.3% at the patient level and from 4.5% to 58.1% at the implant level. The overall analysis revealed a significant association between the lack of keratinized mucosa and a higher prevalence of peri-implantitis (OR = 2.78, 95% CI 2.07–3.74, p < 0.00001). Subgroup analyses with a consistent case definition of peri-implantitis (MBL ≥ 2 mm) showed similar results (OR = 1.96, 95% CI 1.41–2.73, p < 0.0001). Studies focusing on fixed prostheses only demonstrated that the lack of keratinized mucosa was associated with an increased prevalence of peri-implantitis (OR = 2.82, 95% CI 1.85–4.28, p < 0.00001). Among patients under regular implant maintenance, the absence of keratinized mucosa significantly raised the occurrence of peri-implantitis (OR = 2.08, 95% CI 1.41–3.08, p = 0.0002). Studies adjusting for other variables also confirmed a higher risk of peri-implantitis with inadequate keratinized mucosa (OR = 3.68, 95% CI 2.32–5.82, p = 0.007). Although some publication bias was observed, the certainty of evidence based on the GRADE system was judged to be "moderate." Conclusions The lack of keratinized mucosa increased the risk of peri-implantitis, emphasizing the need to consider it during dental implant placement. Inadequate data on patient-specific factors and the predominance of cross-sectional studies influenced the evidence quality (i.e., moderate). Future studies with consistent methodologies shall confirm these findings and identify additional risk indicators to improve implant dentistry practices.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Intégrité de la recherche, Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesIntégrité de la recherche, Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,500
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,999

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0020,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,003
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,006

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,136
Tête enseignante GPT0,368
Écart entre enseignants0,232 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle