MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4391608337 · doi:10.1111/cid.13304

Treatment of peri‐implant mucositis: Adjunctive effect of glycine powder air polishing to professional mechanical biofilm removal. 12 months randomized clinical study

2024· article· en· W4391608337 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nicola Discepoli, Isabella De Rubertis, Ciocci Carolina, Nicola Baldini, Raffaele Mirra

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMucositisMedicineBleeding on probingDentistryImplantRandomized controlled trialDebridement (dental)SurgeryPeriodontal disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: To evaluate the adjunctive effect of glycine-powder air-polishing (GPAP) to full-mouth ultrasonic debridement (Fm-UD) in the treatment of peri-implant mucositis, and to determine the impact of implant and patient-level variables for disease resolution. METHODS: Individuals with a diagnosis of peri-implant mucositis were consecutively included in this randomized parallel arm clinical study. All the participants received a session of Fm-UD. Only implants allocated to the test group were additionally treated with GPAP. Clinical assessments were recorded at baseline, at 3 and at 12 months following intervention. The primary outcomes were complete disease resolution (DR1), defined as absence of bleeding sites at probing per implants, and partial disease resolution (DR2), measured as the presence of less than two bleeding sites at probing per implant. A final logistic multivariate regression model was built to evaluate the predictive role of implant and patient-level variables on DR. RESULTS: Fifty two patients and 157 implants were included. Both groups displayed significant reduction in the extent of bleeding on probing and plaque levels. At 12 months, DR1 was achieved in 16% and 27% of participants for the test and the control group respectively. IDR1 was best predicted by the number of bleeding sites (OR = 2.7, p = 0.04) and the greatest PPD value (OR = 2.7, p = 0.05), while IDR2 by the prosthetic connection (OR = 2.59, p = 0.02), the mean PPD (OR = 2.23, p = 0.04), the FMBS (OR = 4.09, p = 0.04), and number of implants (OR = 4.59, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Despite significant improvements of clinical signs of peri-implant inflammation, the use of GPAP appears to have no adjunctive effect as compared with Fm-UD alone in the achievement of DR. Elevated initial levels of bleeding and PD predicted inferior likelihood of reaching disease resolution. The present randomized parallel arm clinical study was registered on Clinicaltrials.gov and received the following registration number: NCT05801315. This clinical trial was not registered prior to participant recruitment and randomization (https://register. CLINICALTRIALS: gov/prs/app/action/SelectProtocol?sid=S0009965&selectaction=Edit&uid=U0004FXM&ts=2&cx=fje7l8).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.486
Teacher spread0.406 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research→Same topicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→