Microbiologic characteristics of periimplantitis and periodontitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A systematic literature review is presented to clarify differences between the group of microbiologic characteristics of periimplantitis and periodontitis. According to the PRISMA declaration, searches in databases were carried out (PubMed, EBSCOhost, LILACS, Web Of Science and Clinical Key) and original works and systematic reviews were selected where comparing or analyzing microbiologic data obtained from samples of subgingival biofilms of patients with periodontitis and periimplantitis. The weight of evidence was evaluated by means of the Newcastle-Ottawa and PRISMA scales. Of the 335 identified works, 12 were included, of which 9 were observational studies and 3 systematic reviews. It was obtained that the microbiologic characteristics associated with periimplantitis are similar to those of periodontitis because they share a percentage of their microbiota, as the case of the periodontopathogen agents; however, bacterias only related to the periimplantar line were found. Finally, it is remarkable that in periimplantitis are bacterias that are mostly gramnegative anaerobias, periodontopathogens, opportunists and noncultivable; that is to say that their microbiologic characteristics are complex and differ from the specific characteristics of periodontitis.
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 | 0.007 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.035 | 0.026 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".