MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2908040663 · doi:10.1097/id.0000000000000837

Maintenance of Implant Patients

2018· review· nl· W2908040663 on OpenAlexaff
Anastasia Kelekis‐Cholakis, Janet Rothney

Bibliographic record

VenueImplant Dentistry · 2018
Typereview
Languagenl
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDentistryCochrane LibraryMeta-analysisRandomized controlled trialClinical trialMEDLINEImplantSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Patient-administered and professionally administered periimplant maintenance have been recommended to ensure long-term periimplant tissue health. In this narrative review, the effectiveness of patient and professionally administered interventions and the current level of evidence that periimplant maintenance therapy is effective in preventing the occurrence of periimplant disease were examined. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, for evidence-based articles in support of the above topics. RESULTS: Twenty-six clinical trials were included and stratified into categories based on topics. CONCLUSIONS: The following conclusions were reached: (a) mechanical plaque removal is the foundation of successful periimplant therapy; (b) patient- and professionally administered plaque control has been shown to reduce periimplant inflammation, although complete resolution of inflammation is not always evident; (c) the use of adjunctive chemical agents in maintaining periimplant health still remains to be determined; and (d) regular periimplant maintenance plays a significant role in maintaining periimplant soft and hard tissue health.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.190
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.015

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.306 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations8
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueImplant DentistrySame topicDental Implant Techniques and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207