Is Titanium Sensitivity Associated with Allergic Reactions in Patients with Dental Implants? A Systematic Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A worrying correlation which seems to be overlooked by clinicians is allergic reactions to titanium (Ti) in patients with dental implants. PURPOSE: The aim of the present review study was to assess whether or not Ti sensitivity is associated with allergic reactions in patients with dental implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To address the focused question "Can Ti cause allergic reactions in patients with dental implants?", databases were explored from 1977 until May 2010 using a combination of the following keywords: "allergy,""dental,""hypersensitivity,""implant,""oral," and "Titanium." Letters to the editor and unpublished data were excluded. RESULTS: Seven studies (six clinical and one experimental) were included. The participants were aged between 14.3 and 84.1 years. In five clinical studies, Ti implants were inserted in the mandible. Five studies reported dermal inflammatory conditions and gingival hyperplasia as allergic reactions in patients with Ti dental implants. A case report presented swelling in submental and labial sulcus and hyperemia of soft tissues in a patient with Ti dental implants. Two studies reported that Ti implants are well tolerated in host tissues. The patch test was performed in two clinical studies for the diagnosis of allergic reactions. Memory lymphocyte immunostimulation assay and lymphocyte transformation tests were also performed. CONCLUSION: The significance of Ti as a cause of allergic reactions in patients with dental implants remains unproven.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it