The Potential Association Between Inflammatory Bowel Diseases and Apical Periodontitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent literature has suggested a potential association between inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) and apical periodontitis (AP). The present systematic review and meta-analysis sought to analyse and appraise the available evidence regarding the reported association. Following 2020 PRISMA guidelines, a comprehensive search of multiple online databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar) was conducted for all relevant studies published from the date of inception until 27 April 2023 using various relevant keywords. All observational studies that assessed the association between IBD and AP in humans were eligible for inclusion. The quality of the selected studies was carried out independently by two reviewers, and meta-analysis was performed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Version 2.2.064. Six studies (five case-control studies and one cohort study) were included. A total of 657 patients (277 with IBD) were included in 5 case-control studies, and 48,223 subjects (35,740 with AP) were included in the cohort study, where 188 developed IBD on follow-up. The pooled data from the five case-control studies revealed that IBD was significantly associated with a higher risk of AP (OR=1.71, 95% CI: 1.21-2.42; I2=10.337%, fixed-effect, p=0.002). The qualitative analysis also showed that most of the included studies found a higher mean number of teeth with AP in IBD groups than the healthy controls. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS)-based quality appraisal results demonstrated that five studies were of high quality, and one was of moderate quality. The results suggest a potential association between IBD and AP. Large-scale and prospective studies are required to further confirm and elucidate the nature of such an association.
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 | 0.020 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.042 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".