Presence and implication of <i>Candida</i> spp. in patients with peri‐implantitis enrolled in a supportive peri‐implant therapy program of the <scp>Basque Country</scp> (<scp>Spain</scp>). A case–control study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The peri-implant sulcus is a good niche for infectious colonization such as Candida spp. In this study, the level of Candida spp. fungal colonization is analyzed in patients with peri-implantitis under supportive peri-implant therapy, as well as its correlation with the main clinicopathological data. METHODS: A case-control study was carried out on 161 patients treated with dental implants, 80 with PI and 81 without PI, which corresponded to 91 women and 70 men, whose mean age was 60.90 years. A specific protocol was completed for the clinical and implant data. Microbiological samples were taken by oral rinse and with paper tips from the peri-implant sulcus. For the quantitative and qualitative analysis Candida Chromogenic Agar/CONDA plates were incubated for 72 h at 36 + 1°C. Fungal growth was considered active when having more than 50 CFU. Specific Candida spp. cultures were later confirmed by API ID 32C and PCR. RESULTS: Fungal growth was achieved in 28% of oral rinse and 6.75% of peri-implant fluid samples. No significant differences were recognized between study groups. Most of the cultures (>65%) showed more than 50 CFU. The most frequent species were Candida albicans and Candida parapsilosis. There was no association between different PI risk factors and fungal data. The presence of Candida spp. in the oral cavity of patients with dental implants was related to total edentulism and the use of implant-fixed complete prosthesis implant-retained removable prosthesis. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that there is no link between PI and presence of Candida in patients with dental implants undergoing regular supportive periodontal therapy.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".