MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2112018207 · doi:10.1111/cid.12098

Immediate Placement of Implants into Infected Sites: A Systematic Review

2013· review· en· W2112018207 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDentistryImplantDental alveolusSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Traditionally, before placing dental implants, the compromised teeth are removed and the extraction sockets are left to heal for several months. To preserve the alveolar bone level from the collapse caused by healing and to reduce treatment time in situations in which tooth extraction precedes implant placement, some clinicians began to install the implant immediately into the postextraction socket without waiting for the site to heal. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to review the literature regarding treatment outcomes of immediate implant placement into sites exhibiting pathology after clinical procedures to perform the decontamination of the implant's site. The following questions were raised: Does the presence of periodontal or endodontic infection affect immediate implant placement success? What is suggested to address the infection in the socket prior to immediate placement? MATERIALS AND METHODS: An electronic search in PubMed (U.S. National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD, USA) was undertaken in March 2013. The titles and abstracts from these results were read to identify studies within the selection criteria. Eligibility criteria included both animal and human studies, and excluded any review and case reports articles. The publication's intervention had to have been implant placement into a site classified as having an infection (periapical, endodontic, perioendodontic, and periodontal). RESULTS: The search strategy initially yielded 706 references. Thirty-two studies were identified within the selection criteria, from which nine were case reports and review articles and were excluded. Additional hand-searching of the reference lists of selected studies yielded five additional papers. CONCLUSIONS: The high survival rate obtained in several studies supports the hypothesis that implants may be successfully osseointegrated when placed immediately after extraction of teeth presenting endodontic and periodontal lesions, provided that appropriate clinical procedures are performed before the implant surgical procedure such as meticulous cleaning, socket curettage/debridement, and chlorhexidine 0.12% rinse. However, more randomized controlled clinical trials with a longer follow-up are required to confirm this procedure as a safe treatment. Moreover, the outcome measures were not related to the type of infection; the classification of infection was often vague and varied among the studies. The benefits of antibiotic solution irrigation and systemic antibiotic administration in such conditions are not yet proved and remain unclear.

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 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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.225
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.006

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 head0.231
GPT teacher head0.536
Teacher spread0.305 · 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