MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385553128 · doi:10.1038/s41432-023-00913-4

Lack of keratinized mucosa increases peri-implantitis risk

2023· letter· en· W4385553128 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

VenueEvidence-Based Dentistry · 2023
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Bern
KeywordsPeri-implantitisDentistryMedicineMEDLINEScopusMeta-analysisCritical appraisalOdds ratioSystematic reviewImplantSurgeryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Design A systematic appraisal and statistical aggregation of primary studies in humans. Data sources The researchers utilized PubMed (Medline) and Scopus databases as the primary data sources for this study. They performed a comprehensive literature search based on free keywords and Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms to enhance the search accuracy. The database search was concluded on November 13, 2022. Furthermore, a meticulous examination of the references cited in the selected studies was conducted to identify additional relevant articles that could be incorporated into the analysis. Study selection The systematic review focused on partially or fully edentulous patients receiving dental implants and aimed to determine if the lack of keratinized mucosa at the implant site increased the risk of peri-implantitis compared to patients with adequate keratinized mucosa. Human studies with a minimum of 100 implants, cross-sectional, cohort, or case-control designs, and a follow-up period of at least one year were included. Studies lacking a clear case definition or information on peri-implantitis and those that did not investigate keratinized mucosa as a risk indicator were excluded. Data extraction and synthesis Two reviewers independently utilized a systematic review screening website (Rayyan, Qatar Computing Research Institute, Qatar Foundation) to select potential articles, and conflicts were resolved through discussion or consultation with a third reviewer. The data extraction process involved recording information from the included articles, such as study design, patient and implant numbers, prosthesis type (fixed or removable), follow-up duration, peri-implantitis case definition, prevalence at patient and implant levels, keratinized mucosa cutoff value, odds ratio (OR) of peri-implantitis considering keratinized mucosa, and conclusions on the potential effect of keratinized mucosa from each study. The Newcastle Ottawa scale (NOS) and a modified version of NOS were used, respectively, to assess the quality of cohort and cross-sectional studies. Studies scoring below 6 out of 9 points were classified as low quality. For the meta-analysis, the relationship between peri-implantitis and keratinized mucosa was evaluated using the odds ratio (OR) and standard error (SE). Heterogeneity was assessed through the Chi 2 test and I 2 index, determining whether a random-effects or fixed-effects model should be applied. Subgroup and cluster analyses were conducted based on specific criteria, and forest plots and funnel plots were generated to visualize results and identify potential study bias. Sensitivity analysis was performed to verify the robustness of the meta-analysis, with statistical significance set at p < 0.05. The Review Manager (RevMan) software facilitated data analysis. The GRADE rating system was used to determine the level of evidence, considering factors such as bias risk, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness, and publication bias. The certainty of the evidence was evaluated based on the overall outcomes of analyzed subgroups. Results Twenty-two primary studies were identified, and a meta-analysis was conducted on 16 cross-sectional studies. The prevalence of peri-implantitis ranged from 6.68% to 62.3% at the patient level and from 4.5% to 58.1% at the implant level. The overall analysis revealed a significant association between the lack of keratinized mucosa and a higher prevalence of peri-implantitis (OR = 2.78, 95% CI 2.07–3.74, p < 0.00001). Subgroup analyses with a consistent case definition of peri-implantitis (MBL ≥ 2 mm) showed similar results (OR = 1.96, 95% CI 1.41–2.73, p < 0.0001). Studies focusing on fixed prostheses only demonstrated that the lack of keratinized mucosa was associated with an increased prevalence of peri-implantitis (OR = 2.82, 95% CI 1.85–4.28, p < 0.00001). Among patients under regular implant maintenance, the absence of keratinized mucosa significantly raised the occurrence of peri-implantitis (OR = 2.08, 95% CI 1.41–3.08, p = 0.0002). Studies adjusting for other variables also confirmed a higher risk of peri-implantitis with inadequate keratinized mucosa (OR = 3.68, 95% CI 2.32–5.82, p = 0.007). Although some publication bias was observed, the certainty of evidence based on the GRADE system was judged to be "moderate." Conclusions The lack of keratinized mucosa increased the risk of peri-implantitis, emphasizing the need to consider it during dental implant placement. Inadequate data on patient-specific factors and the predominance of cross-sectional studies influenced the evidence quality (i.e., moderate). Future studies with consistent methodologies shall confirm these findings and identify additional risk indicators to improve implant dentistry practices.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.500
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.006

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 head0.136
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.232 · 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