MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2964144491 · doi:10.1155/2019/9187978

Antioxidants as Adjuvants in Periodontitis Treatment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2019· review· en· W2964144491 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueOxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicOral microbiology and periodontitis research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersPró-Reitoria de Pesquisa e Pós-Graduação, Universidade Federal do ParáUniversidade Federal do Rio de JaneiroUniversidade Federal do ParáCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível SuperiorUniversidade Federal do Rio Grande do SulUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsMeta-analysisPeriodontitisMedicineMEDLINEBioinformaticsDentistryBiologyInternal medicineBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This systematic review with meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effect of antioxidants as an adjuvant in periodontitis treatment. The following databases were consulted: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane, Lilacs, OpenGrey, and Google Scholar. Based on the PICO strategy, the inclusion criteria comprised interventional studies including periodontitis patients (participants) treated with conventional therapy and antioxidants (intervention) compared to patients treated only with conventional therapy (control) where the periodontal response (outcome) was evaluated. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane RoB tool (for randomized studies) and ROBINS-I tool (for nonrandomized studies). Quantitative data were analyzed in five random effects meta-analyses considering the following periodontal parameters: clinical attachment loss (CAL), plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), bleeding on probing (BOP), and probing depth (PD). After all, the level of certainty was measured with the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tool. Among the 1884 studies identified, only 15 interventional studies were according to the eligibility criteria and they were included in our review. From them, 4 articles presented a high risk of bias. The meta-analysis showed a statistically significant difference for CAL (SMD 0.29 (0.04, 0.55), <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M1"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn>0.03</mml:mn></mml:math>, <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M2"><mml:msup><mml:mrow><mml:mi>I</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mn>2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn>13</mml:mn><mml:mi>%</mml:mi></mml:math>), PI (SMD 0.41 (0.18, 0.64), <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M3"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn>0.0005</mml:mn></mml:math>, <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M4"><mml:msup><mml:mrow><mml:mi>I</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mn>2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn>47</mml:mn><mml:mi>%</mml:mi></mml:math>), and BOP (SMD 0.55 (0.27, 0.83), <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M5"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn>0.0001</mml:mn></mml:math>, <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M6"><mml:msup><mml:mrow><mml:mi>I</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mn>2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn>0</mml:mn><mml:mi>%</mml:mi></mml:math>). The GRADE tool showed a moderate to high certainty in the quality of evidence depending on the clinical parameter and antioxidants used. These results suggest that the use of antioxidants is an adjunct approach to nonsurgical periodontal therapy which may be helpful in controlling the periodontal status.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.839
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.158
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.249 · 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