MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403371556 · doi:10.1038/s41432-024-01073-9

Guided bone regeneration improves defect fill and reconstructive outcomes in 3-wall peri-implantitis defects

2024· article· en· W4403371556 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Kelvin I. Afrashtehfar, Hayam A. Alfallaj, Eduardo Fernández, Souheil Hussaini

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Dentistry · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Bern
KeywordsMedicinePeri-implantitisDentistryBleeding on probingRandomized controlled trialImplantSurgeryPeriodontitis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

DESIGN: This multi-center, randomized clinical trial compared the long-term outcomes of guided bone regeneration (GBR) with open flap debridement (OFD) in treating peri-implantitis-related bony defects with ≥3 osseous walls over 36 months. The study aimed to evaluate the healing potential of GBR using a deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) graft and native bilayer collagen membrane (NBCM) compared to OFD without the use of graft materials. CASE SELECTION: Sixty-six individuals diagnosed with peri-implantitis were randomly assigned to either GBR (34 patients) or OFD (32 patients). The OFD group served as the control, where inflamed tissue was removed and the implant surface decontaminated using 3% hydrogen peroxide, but no bone graft was placed. The GBR group received DBBM and NBCM for defect reconstruction. Radiographic defect fill (RDF), probing pocket depth (PPD), bleeding on probing (BOP), suppuration (SUP), mucosal recession (MREC), and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were assessed over the study duration. Post-surgical care included azithromycin, ibuprofen, and chlorhexidine rinses. STUDY TIMELINE: The study involved baseline assessments, surgical interventions, and follow-ups at 6, 12, and 36 months. Supportive peri-implant therapy was provided every 3 months during the additional 24-month follow-up. DATA ANALYSIS: Primary outcome was RDF at 36 months. Secondary outcomes included PPD, BOP, SUP, MREC, and PROs. Descriptive statistics and ANCOVA models were used for analysis. RESULTS: At 36 months, GBR resulted in a mean RDF of 2.13 ± 1.26 mm, compared to 1.64 ± 1.54 mm with OFD (p = .18). No significant differences were found in PPD, BOP, SUP, REC, or PROs between the groups. Treatment success (defined as no additional bone loss, PPD ≤ 5 mm, no BOP, and no SUP) was achieved in 46.2% of GBR cases and 20% of OFD cases (p = 0.053). CONCLUSIONS: GBR provided improved short-term defect fill and higher treatment success compared to OFD, although the differences were not statistically significant. Both procedures maintained clinical parameters over 36 months, with similar patient satisfaction (PROs) observed for GBR and OFD. The adjunct use of DBBM and NBCM may offer clinical benefits for peri-implantitis cases with specific bony defect morphology.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based DentistrySame topicDental Implant Techniques and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207