The role of systemic statins in the inception and healing of apical periodontitis: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Statins are a category of medications widely used to reduce plasma LDL-cholesterol levels, that also possess antibacterial, anti-inflammatory, and immunomodulatory action. The aim of this systematic review was to explore the effects of systemic statins therapy on the development and treatment of apical periodontitis (AP) on humans and animals. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Three electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus) and grey literature were searched from their inception until February, 20 2023 (PROSPERO CRD42021246231). For the quality assessment and risk of bias, different guidelines were used according to the typology of the studies considered (Animal Research Reporting of In Vivo Experiments, Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Form for Cohort Studies, Systematic Review Centre for Laboratory animal Experimentation Risk of Bias tool and Tool to assess risk of bias in cohort studies of CLARITY Group). RESULTS: Seven hundred eleven records were screened, and six articles were included for this qualitative review. The eligible studies showed a moderate overall quality and risk of bias. Human patients in treatment with statins exhibited a higher healing rate of AP following root canal treatment. In experimental animal models, statins had a beneficial effect on the development of AP. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the limited number of studies and considering that most of them are on animals, our findings suggest that systemically administered statins make a positive contribution to prevent the development and help healing of AP. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: There is an increased evidence that a pharmacologic adjunct to endodontic treatment may be considered to enhance healing of AP. Among other medications, statins seem to have a positive impact on the disease.
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 | 0.009 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".