Peri‐implant conditions and levels of advanced glycation end products among patients with different glycemic control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A close relationship between poor glycemic control and peri-implant break down has been demonstrated. It is hypothesized that levels of advanced glycation end products (AGEs) in peri-implant sulcular fluid (PISF) are higher with increased glycemic levels in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients. PURPOSE: In the present study, we examined the clinical and radiographic peri-implant parameters and levels of AGEs among different glycemic levels in diabetic patients and assessed whether the levels of AGEs correlate with clinical peri-implant parameters. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety-three patients who participated in this study were divided into four groups; Group-1: HbA1c 6.1%-8%; Group-2: HbA1c 8.1%-10%; Group-3: HbA1c > 10%; Group-4: non-diabetic individuals with HbA1c < 6%. Peri-implant plaque index (PI), bleeding on probing (BOP), probing depth (PD) and crestal bone loss (CBL) were recorded. Levels of AGEs in PISF were quantified using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Between-group comparison of means was verified with Kruskal-Wallis test and Pearson correlation coefficient for correlations of AGE levels with peri-implant parameters. RESULTS: Peri-implant PI, BOP, PD, and CBL were significantly higher in group-1, -2, and -3 as compared to non-diabetic patients (P < .05). These parameters were significantly higher in group-2 and group-3 versus group-1 (P < .01). Mean PI, BOP, PD, and CBL were comparable between group-2 and group-3 patients (P > .05). Mean levels of AGEs in PISF were significantly higher in relation to higher levels of HbA1c levels. Significant positive correlations were found between AGEs and PD (P = .0221) and CBL (P = .0425); and significant negative correlation was found for PI (P = .0376) in patients with HbA1c levels >10%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical and radiographic peri-implant parameters were poor and levels of AGEs were significantly high in patients with high glycemic levels. These findings suggest that AGEs may be considered as potential marker of inflammation in diabetic individuals with peri-implantitis.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".