MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Bacterial leakage along the implant–abutment interface: culture and DNA Checkerboard hybridization analyses

2011· article· en· W2083100625 on OpenAlexaff
Cássio do Nascimento, Paola Kirsten Miani, Vinícius Pedrazzi, Katia Müller, Rubens Ferreira de Albuquerque

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Oral Implants Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCheckerboardSalivaDentistryLeakage (economics)ImplantBiologyMicrobiologyMedicineSurgeryBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Bacterial species have been found harboring the internal surface of dental implants as consequence of their failed connections. The aim of the present study was to compare the detection frequency of bacterial leakage from human saliva through the implant-abutment interface, under non-loading conditions, using either DNA Checkerboard or culture method. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty dental implants with hexagonal platforms were connected to pre-machined abutments according to the manufacturers' specifications. The assemblies were individually incubated in human saliva under anaerobic conditions for 7 days at 37°C. Afterward, contents from the inner parts of the implants were collected and evaluated with either DNA Checkerboard (s = 15) or culture (n = 15). Subsequently, identification and quantitation of bacterial species from saliva and implants were carried out for the group evaluated with the DNA Checkerboard method. RESULTS: Both DNA Checkerboard and culture showed positive signals of bacterial leakage in 6 of the 15 evaluated samples. Capnocytophaga gingivalis and Streptococcus mutans were the most frequently detected species harboring the internal surface of the implants followed by Veillonella parvula. CONCLUSION: Occurrence of bacterial leakage along the implant-abutment interface is comparably detected with both DNA Checkerboard hybridization and conventional culture methods.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.537
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.456
GPT teacher head0.555
Teacher spread0.098 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations41
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Oral Implants ResearchSame topicDental Implant Techniques and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207