No Evidence of Genotoxic Damage in a Group of Patients with Titanium Dental Implants and Different Metal Restorations in the Oral Cavity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Titanium is the most widely used metal in implant dentistry. In spite of its biocompatibility, when it is released into the oral environment, it can have local negative biological effects. PURPOSE: The aims of this study were to detect the concentration of metal ions in patients with dental implants, to evaluate whether or not their release might be influenced by the presence of other metals, and to assay whether these ions might provoke genotoxic damage in oral mucosa cells. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred five patients with a total of 180 dental implants were included. The sample was divided into seven groups (n = 15 per group). Group 1 consisted of patients with metal-porcelain fixed crowns on dental implants; Group 2, patients with metal-porcelain fixed crowns on teeth; Group 3, patients with dental amalgams; Group 4, patients with metal-porcelain fixed crowns on dental implants and metal-porcelain fixed crowns on teeth; Group 5, patients with metal-porcelain fixed crowns on dental implants and dental amalgams; and Group 6, patients with metal-porcelain fixed crowns on dental implants, metal-porcelain fixed crowns on teeth, and dental amalgams. Group 7 was the control group, without any dental treatment. The concentration of metal ions was detected using inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry; genotoxicity was measured using the buccal micronucleus cytome assay protocol. RESULTS: Group 5 displayed the highest concentration of metal ions in parts per billion (Ti, Co, Ni, Zn, Pd, Sn, and Pb). Group 6 was characterized by the highest presence of Hg. No signs of genotoxic damage were found in any of the study groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with titanium dental implants combined with other metal restorations presented higher concentrations of metal ions, but no genotoxic damage was observed in oral mucosal epithelial cells.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".