Microbiota associated with peri‐implantitis—A systematic review with meta‐analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To answer the following PECO question: "In systemically healthy human subjects (P), which are the differences between peri-implantitis (E) and peri-implant health/mucositis (C) in terms of bacterial presence/count (O)?" MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cross-sectional studies fulfilling specific inclusion criteria established to answer the PECO question were included. Two review authors independently searched for studies, screened the titles and abstracts, did full-text analysis, extracted the data from the included reports, and performed the risk of bias assessment through an adaptation of the Newcastle/Ottawa tool for cross-sectional studies and of the JBI critical appraisal checklist. In case of disagreement, a third reviewer author took the final decision. Study results were summarized using random effects meta-analyses. RESULTS: A total of 12 studies were included, involving 1233 participants and 1513 implants. Peri-implantitis was associated with the presence of S. epidermidis (Odds ratio, OR = 10.28 [95% Confidence interval, CI: 1.26-83.98]), F. nucleatum (OR = 7.83 [95% CI: 2.24-27.36]), T. denticola (OR = 6.11 [95% CI: 2.72-13.76]), T. forsythia (OR = 4.25 [95% CI: 1.71-10.57]), P. intermedia (OR = 3.79 [95% CI: 1.07-13.35]), and P. gingivalis (OR = 2.46 [95% CI: 1.21-5.00]). Conversely, the presence of A. actinomycetemcomitans (OR = 3.82 [95% CI: 0.59-24.68]), S. aureus (OR = 1.05 [95% CI: 0.06-17.08]), and C. rectus (OR = 1.48 [95% CI: 0.69-3.17]) was not associated with peri-implantitis. CONCLUSIONS: Peri-implantitis is associated with the presence of S. epidermidis and specific periodontopathogens (P. gingivalis, T. forsythia, T. denticola, F. nucleatum, and P. intermedia). (CRD42021254589).
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 | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.009 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".