Impact of Oral Infection on Organ Transplantation: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Posttransplant infections may lead to dire consequences in immunocompromised organ recipients. Oral foci of infection are therefore often eliminated prior to solid organ transplantation to reduce posttransplant morbidity. However, despite increasing numbers of organ transplantations the necessity of pretransplant dental treatment and its effect on transplant outcome remains uncertain. The aim of the present systematic review was to evaluate the impact of oral foci of infection and pretransplant dental treatment on adverse events following solid organ transplantation. METHODS: Studies on adult patients undergoing solid organ transplantation with/without oral infection or with/without pretransplant dental treatment were eligible. An electronic search in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL and Cochrane was conducted up to June 11, 2024. Screening of eligibility, data extraction and risk-of-bias assessment of the included studies with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were done independently by two reviewers. Data were synthesized with a narrative approach. RESULTS: In total, 4035 unique publications were identified. After full text assessment of 75 studies nine cohort studies on liver, kidney, heart and/or lung transplantation based on 727 patients were included. Two studies based on 161 patients found a significant increase of infectious complications after liver transplantation when no dental treatment was performed. Presence of oral foci increased the risk of hospitalization after kidney transplantation in one study but was associated with lower infection rate after lung transplantation in another study. No studies found significant impact on mortality or on organ rejection. Overall, the quality of the included studies was good with low or medium risk-of-bias. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review on the impact of oral infection on organ transplantation. The results suggest a possible link between persisting oral infection and posttransplant infectious complications, thus lending support to the elimination of oral infectious foci before solid organ transplantation.
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 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".