Microbial flora surrounding orthodontic temporary skeletal anchorage devices: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: The oral cavity harbours distinct microorganisms, which create a unique microenvironment. These microorganisms might trigger inflammatory reactions in the host, potentially leading to inflammation that can question the stability of temporary skeletal anchorage devices(TSADs). This study aimed to systematically review the literature on the type of microorganisms around TSADs. Methods: A search of studies in six electronic databases - Cochrane Library, PubMed, OVID, Scopus, LILACS and Web of Science were performed until 30 May 2024 without any restriction in date or language of publication. The selection of articles was limited to studies evaluating the microorganisms around TSADs during orthodontic treatment. Two reviewers independently performed eligibility screening, study selection, and data extraction. The Newcastle Ottawa scale was used to assess the Risk of bias in all the included studies. Meta-analysis could not be performed because of the heterogeneity of the studies. Results: From 7020 articles, seven prospective studies were included for the qualitative analysis. Porphyromonas gingivalis and Treponema denticola were found around all TSADs used in orthodontic therapy. There was a significant difference in the type of microorganisms around successful and failed TSADs. Conclusions: There was an overall colonization of diverse microorganisms around TSADS. Failed TSADs showed greater Porphyromonas gingivalis, Parvimonas micra and facultative anaerobic enteric commensal Enterobacter.
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 | 0.014 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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".