Role of Probiotics for the Treatment of Peri-Implant Mucositis in Patients With and Without Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study hypothesized that probiotic therapy (PT) does not offer additional benefits to mechanical debridement (MD) for the treatment of diabetic subjects with peri-implant mucositis (PM). This study compared the influence of PT as an adjunct to MD for the treatment of PM in type 2 diabetic and nondiabetic patients over a 12-month follow-up period. Patients with and without type 2 diabetes were included. PM patients were categorized into 2 groups based on the treatment procedure: (1) nonsurgical + PT and (2) nonsurgical MD alone. Demographics and education statuses were recorded. Gingival index (GI) and plaque index (PI), crestal bone loss (CBL), and probing depth (PD) were measured at baseline and after 6 and 12 months. Significant differences were detected with P < .01. The hemoglobin A1c level was significantly higher in patients with diabetes at all time durations than in patients without type 2 diabetes (P < .001). Baseline GI, PI, PD, and CBL were comparable in all groups. In patients with type 2 diabetes, there was no difference in PI, GI, PD, and CBL at 6- and 12-month follow-up. In patients without type 2 diabetes, there was a significant reduction in PI (P < .01), GI (P < .01), and PD (P < .01) at 6-month and 1-year follow-up as compared with baseline. In patients without type 2 diabetes, MD with or without adjunct PT reduced soft-tissue inflammatory parameters in patients with PM.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".