Self‐rated peri‐implant oral symptoms and clinicoradiographic characteristics in Narghile‐smokers, cigarette‐smokers, and nonsmokers with peri‐implantitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The hypothesis is that self-rated peri-implant oral symptoms (OS) and clinical (plaque index [PI] and probing depth [PD]) and radiographic (crestal bone loss [CBL]) are higher in (cigarette-smokers [CS]) and (waterpipe-users) than (nonsmokers [NS]). The aim was to relate peri-implant self-perceived OS with clinico-radiographic parameters among CS, waterpipe-users, and NS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was performed on self-reported CS, waterpipe-users, and NS with peri-implantitis. A questionnaire was used to record peri-implant self-perceived OS (pain in gums, bleeding gums, bad breath, and loose implant) and demographic data (age, sex, duration of smoking and waterpipe usage, duration of implants in function, duration since diagnosis of peri-implantitis). Clinico-radiographic parameters (CBL, PD, PI, and bleeding on probing [BOP]) were also measured; and compared with the self-perceived OS. Group comparisons were done for perceived OS and clinico-radiographic variables, and significant differences were deemed when P-values were under .05. RESULTS: One hundred male participants (35 CS, 33 waterpipe-users, and 32 NS) with peri-implantitis were included. Pain in gums (P < .05) and bad breath (P < .05) were more frequently perceived by CS and waterpipe-users than NS. There was no significant difference in perceived bleeding gums around the implant or loose implant among all groups. The CBL (P < .01), PI (P < .001), and PD (P < .01) were significantly high in CS and waterpipe-users than NS. NS (P < .05) had significantly higher BOP than waterpipe-users and CS. There was no significant difference in CBL, PI, PD, and BOP among waterpipe-users and CS. CONCLUSION: Tobacco-smokers present with worse peri-implant perceived OS and clinicoradiograhic parameters than nonsmokers 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".