Is keratinized mucosa indispensable to maintain peri‐implant health? A systematic review of the literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The significance of keratinized mucosa (KM) around dental implants is still not well explained and has been controversial. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the importance of KM around dental implants. The electronic databases Cochrane library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Virtual Health Library (VHL) databases were utilized to search original articles from 2006 to March 2013. The inclusion and exclusion criteria used to select the articles were: (1) Human studies published in the English language; (2) Study published in international peer-viewed journals; (3) Studies evaluated the association between KM width and the peri-implant tissue health; (4) Studies that have follow up of greater than 12 months; (5) Publication of studies not older than 10 years. The searches retrieved 285 citations. Seven articles fulfilled all of the inclusion criteria. Out of these, three studies were ranked as presenting high methodological quality, and four were judged to be of moderate quality. This systematic review concludes that the presence of an adequate zone of keratinized tissue may be necessary because it was shown to be related to better peri-implant tissue health. Further randomized controlled trials are necessary to support this statement.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".