Effects of tobacco smoking on the survival rate of dental implants placed in areas of maxillary sinus floor augmentation: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the effects of smoking on the survival rate of dental implants placed in areas of maxillary sinus floor augmentation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched in duplicate up to, and including, October 2012 without language restrictions. Studies were considered eligible for inclusion if they involved the treatment of smokers and non-smokers with titanium implants and sinus floor elevation procedures. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Cochrane Collaboration's quality assessment tool were used for the assessment of the risk of bias in included studies. Random effects meta-analyses were used to assess the number of implants lost in smokers vs. number of implants lost in non-smokers. RESULTS: Of 3360 potentially eligible papers, eight studies were included. More than half (62.5%) of the studies found that smoking adversely affects implant survival in sites of sinus floor augmentation. Similarly, the pooled analysis indicated a statistically significantly increased risk of implant failure in smokers when the outcomes of all studies available to be included into meta-analysis were evaluated [RR: 1.87 (95% CI: 1.35, 2.58), P = 0.0001]. Conversely, a subgroup analysis including only prospective studies (3 studies) did not reveal significant differences in implant failure between smokers and non-smokers [RR: 1.55 (95% CI: 0.91, 2.65), P = 0.11]. CONCLUSIONS: Although smoking was associated with implant failure in most of individual studies and in the overall meta-analysis, the detrimental effect of smoking was not confirmed when only prospective data were assessed.
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 | 0.008 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".