Loss of nonvital abutment teeth for removable partial dentures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To analyze the loss of nonvital abutment teeth compared to vital abutment teeth supporting removable partial dentures (RPDs). METHOD AND MATERIALS: An electronic search was conducted in the Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science databases, and supplemented by a manual search. The search was done to identify clinical studies reporting the loss of nonvital abutment teeth compared to vital abutment teeth for RPDs. The data were extracted from each selected article and meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model to estimate adjusted proportion of abutment loss with RPDs along with 95% confidence interval (CI). Risk of bias assessment was conducted using Cochrane Risk of Bias tools and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The statistical significance was set as P value < .05. RESULTS: A total of 3,898 records were identified from electronic databases and 8 studies were included for quantitative synthesis of 834 subjects with 1,036 RPDs. No additional records were identified through manual search. Among 1,152 nonvital abutment teeth, 123 teeth were lost. The estimate of nonvital abutment loss was 13% (95% CI 9-18%]. The data were statistically significant (P < .0001), and were heterogenous between the studies (χ2 [df = 7] = 35.9, P < .0001; τ2 = 0.25, I2 = 76.46%). A total of 2,186 vital abutment teeth were compounded where 114 teeth were lost. The estimate of vital abutment loss was 4% (95% CI 2-7%). The data were statistically significant (P < .0001), and were heterogenous between the studies (χ2 [df = 7] = 23.7, P = .01; τ2 = 0.56, I2 = 86.31%). The risk of abutment loss was approximately three times greater with the loss of vitality (odds ratio = 3.04, 95% CI 1.53-6.05; P = .001). In addition, abutment loss was significantly greater with increasing follow-up time (P = .01). None of the included studies were considered to be at high risk of bias. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this systematic review and meta-analysis, the loss of nonvital abutment teeth was significantly greater than that of vital abutment teeth for RPDs. Further research is needed to identify critical factors associated with the loss of nonvital abutment teeth.
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 | 0.015 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.028 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".