The survival of periodontally treated molars in long‐term maintenance: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the survival of periodontally treated molars during maintenance care and identify the risk factors associated with molar loss among patients with periodontitis who received professional periodontal therapy and maintenance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Longitudinal studies with a minimum follow-up duration of 5 years published until 28 August 2023 were retrieved from the following databases: the Cochrane Library, Embase, MEDLINE and Web of Science. All included studies reported data on molar retention. Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.4. A modified version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to evaluate the study quality. Statistical results of analyses of the overall survival rate and molar loss are presented as estimated standardized mean differences, whereas the results of the analyses of risk factors are presented as risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). RESULTS: From among the 1323 potentially eligible reports, 41 studies (5584 patients, 29,908 molars retained at the beginning of maintenance therapy, mean follow-up duration of 14.7 years) were included. The pooled survival rate of the molars during maintenance therapy was 82% (95% CI: 80%-84%). The average loss of molars was 0.05 per patient per year (95% CI: 0.04-0.06) among the patients receiving long-term periodontal maintenance (PM) therapy. Fifteen factors were examined in this meta-analysis. Six patient-related factors (older age, lack of compliance, smoking, bruxism, diabetes and lack of private insurance) and five tooth-related factors (maxillary location, high probing pocket depth, furcation involvement, higher mobility and lack of pulpal vitality) were identified as risk factors for molar loss during maintenance therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of the present study suggest that the long-term retention of periodontally compromised molars can be achieved. The average number of molars lost per decade was <1 among the patients receiving long-term PM therapy. Older age, noncompliance, smoking, bruxism, diabetes, lack of private insurance coverage, maxillary location, furcation involvement, higher mobility, increase in the probing pocket depth and loss of pulpal vitality are strong risk factors for the long-term prognosis of molars.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".