Impact of smoking on peri‐implant bleeding on probing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies around natural dentition demonstrated that smoking can reduce the tendency of inflamed tissue to bleed upon probing after controlling for possible confounders. In addition, previous research suggested that smokers may present alterations of the peri-implant microbiome. AIM: This study aimed at investigating the impact of smoking on: (1) peri-implant bleeding on probing (BOP; primary objective); (2) the association between BOP/bone loss and BOP/visible gingival inflammation; (3) peri-implant microbiome. METHODS: Partially edentulous patients with implants restored with a single crowns were included in this study. Subjects were either smokers (≥1 cigarettes per day) or nonsmokers (never smokers). The primary outcome of this cross-sectional study was BOP and secondary outcomes included: Probing pocket depth (PPD), Modified gingival Index (mGI) and Progressive Marginal Bone Loss. In addition, microbial profiles of the subjects were assessed through sequencing of the 16S rRNA gene. Univariate and multilevel multivariate analyses by means of Generalized Estimating Equations were conducted to analyze the association between smoking and peri-implant BOP. RESULTS: Overall, 27 nonsmokers and 27 smokers were included and 96.3% and 77.78% of patients presented peri-implant BOP in the nonsmoker and smoker group, respectively (p = 0.046). Smoking was inversely associated with BOP in the multivariate multilevel analysis (OR = 0.356; 95% CI: 0.193-0.660; p = 0.001) whereas a positive correlation was demonstrated for mGI > 0 (OR = 3.289; 95% CI: 2.014-5.371; p < 0.001); PPD (OR = 1.692; 95% CI: 0.263-0.883; p = 0.039) and gender (OR = 2.323; 95% CI: 1.310-4.120 p = 0.004). A decrease of BOP sensitivity in detecting visible gingival inflammation (mGI > 0) was observed in smokers. Besides, taxonomic and changes in diversity regarding the peri-implant microbiota were detected comparing the two groups. Significantly higher richness of the microbiota was demonstrated in the smoker group when implants affected by peri-implantitis were compared to either healthy implants or implants presenting mucositis. CONCLUSIONS: Smoking is a potential modifier of BOP and peri-implant microbiota.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".