MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380536919 · doi:10.1186/s12903-023-03120-w

Association of vitamin D in individuals with periodontitis: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

2023· review· en· W4380536919 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Oral Health · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVitamin D Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisCochrane LibraryPeriodontitisRandomized controlled trialSubgroup analysisInternal medicineChronic periodontitisMEDLINEStrictly standardized mean differencePopulationRelative riskPublication biasConfidence intervalDentistryEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: There are differences in vitamin D levels between periodontitis and healthy individuals, but the effect of vitamin D on periodontitis is controversial. The purpose of this Meta-analysis is twofold: (1) compare vitamin D levels in individuals with or without periodontitis; (2) assess the effects of vitamin D supplementation during scaling and root planing (SRP) on periodontal clinical parameters in individuals with periodontitis. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in five databases (PubMed, Web of Science, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane library), published from the database inception to 12 September 2022. The Cochrane Collaboration Risk of bias (ROB) assessment tool, the risk of bias in non-randomized studies of intervention (ROBINS-I) tool, the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS), and Agency for Healthcare Quality and Research (AHRQ) were used to evaluate randomized controlled trial (RCT), non-RCT, case-control study, and cross-sectional study, respectively. Statistical analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 and Stata 14.0 software, with weighted mean difference (WMD), standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) as the effect measures, and heterogeneity was tested by subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis, Meta-regression. RESULTS: A total of 16 articles were included. The results of Meta-analysis showed that periodontitis was associated with lower serum vitamin D levels compared to normal population (SMD = -0.88, 95%CI -1.75 ~ -0.01, P = 0.048), while there was no significant difference in serum or saliva 25(OH)D levels between periodontitis and normal population. Additionally, the Meta-analysis showed that SRP + vitamin D and SRP alone had a statistically significant effect on serum vitamin D levels in individuals with periodontitis (SMD = 23.67, 95%CI 8.05 ~ 32.29, P = 0.003; SMD = 1.57, 95%CI 1.08 ~ 2.06, P < 0.01). And SRP + vitamin D could significantly reduce clinical attachment level compared to SRP alone (WMD = -0.13, 95%CI -0.19 ~ -0.06, P < 0.01), but had no meaningful effect on probing depth, gingival index, bleeding index, respectively. CONCLUSION: The evidence from this Meta-analysis suggests that the serum vitamin D concentration of individuals with periodontitis is lower than that of normal people, and SRP along with vitamin D supplementation has been shown to play a significant role in improving periodontal clinical parameters. Therefore, vitamin D supplementation as an adjuvant to nonsurgical periodontal therapy has a positive impact on the prevention and treatment of periodontal disease in clinical practice.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.777
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0160.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.206
GPT teacher head0.464
Teacher spread0.258 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it