MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2804601847 · doi:10.1111/cid.12620

The influence of implant‐abutment connection to peri‐implant bone loss: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

2018· review· en· W2804601847 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 · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImplantMeta-analysisAbutmentDentistryMedicineSystematic reviewDental implantRandomized controlled trialOrthodonticsMEDLINESurgeryEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Different implant-abutment connections are available and it has been claimed they could have an effect on marginal bone loss. The aim of this review is to establish if implant connection configuration influences peri-implant bone loss (PBL) after functional loading. METHODS: A specific question was formulated according to the Population, Intervention, Control, and Outcome (PICO): Does the type of implant-abutment connection (external, internal, or conical) have an influence on peri-implant bone loss? A PubMed/MEDLINE electronic search was conducted to identify English language publications published in international journals during the last decade (from 2006 to 2016). The search was conducted by using the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) keywords "dental implants OR dental abutment AND external connection OR internal connection OR conical connection OR Morse Taper." Selected studies were randomized clinical trials and prospective studies; in vitro studies, case reports and retrospective studies were excluded. Titles and abstracts and, in the second phase, full texts, were evaluated autonomously and in duplicate by two reviewers. RESULTS: A total of 1649 articles were found, but only 14 studies met the pre-established inclusion criteria and were considered suitable for meta-analytic analysis. The network meta-analysis (NMA) suggested a significant difference between the external and the conical connections; this was less evident for the internal and conical ones. Platform-switching (PS) seemed to positively affect bone levels, non-regarding the implant-connection it was applied to. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this systematic review, it can be concluded that crestal bone levels are better maintained in the short-medium term when internal kinds of interface are adopted. In particular, conical connections seem to be more advantageous, showing lower peri-implant bone loss, but further studies are necessary to investigate the efficacy of implant-abutment connection on stability of crestal bone levels.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.723
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.207
GPT teacher head0.521
Teacher spread0.315 · 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