MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2607393215 · doi:10.17140/doj-2-117

Peri-Implantitis: A Review of the Disease and Report of a Case Treated with Allograft to Achieve Bone Regeneration

2015· review· en· W2607393215 on OpenAlexaff
Haroon Rashid, Zeeshan Sheikh, Fahim Vohra, Ayesha Hanif, Michael Glogauer

Bibliographic record

VenueDentistry - Open Journal · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeri-implantitisRegeneration (biology)MedicineDentistrySurgeryImplantBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dental implants offer excellent tooth replacement options however; peri-implantitis can limit their clinical success by causing failure.Peri-implantitis is an inflammatory process around dental implants resulting in bone loss in association with bleeding and suppuration.Dental plaque is at the center of its etiology, and in addition, systemic diseases, smoking, and parafunctional habits are also implicated.The pathogenic species associated with peri-implantitis include, Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans, Porphyromonas gingivalis, and Tannerella forsythia.The goal in the management of peri-implantitis is the complete resolution of peri-implant infection with function.Therapies using various biomaterials to deliver antibiotics have been used in the treatment of peri-implantitis e.g.fibers, gels, and beads.The use of guided tissue regeneration barrier membranes loaded with antimicrobials has shown success in re-osseointegrating the infected implants in animal models.Several uncertainties still remain regarding the management of peri-implantitis.The purpose of this article is to present a background of peri-implantitis along with a case of peri-implantitis successfully treated for bone regeneration.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.323 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations9
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDentistry - Open Journal→Same topicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→