MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4409182908 · doi:10.1111/cid.70024

Reconstructive Therapy of Peri‐Implantitis Following Non‐Surgical Treatment: A Randomized Controlled Trial

2025· article· en· W4409182908 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Maria Costanza Soldini, Ramón Pons, José Nart, Alberto Monje, Neus Carrió, Cristina Vallés

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Illinois at Chicago
KeywordsMedicineRadiographyRandomized controlled trialPeri-implantitisReconstructive surgeryStatistical significanceClinical trialDentistryClinical significanceSurgeryImplantInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: To evaluate the clinical and radiographic outcomes of non-surgical treatment followed by either reconstructive therapy or supportive care with no further surgical measures for the treatment of peri-implantitis intra-bony defects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This randomized clinical trial included patients diagnosed with peri-implantitis exhibiting intrabony defects (≥ 3 mm). All 36 patients received a standardized peri-implant non-surgical therapy. Patients who did not demonstrate disease resolution based on clinical and radiographic re-evaluation were randomized into two groups. The test group received reconstructive therapy [reconstructive group (RG)] while the control group received no additional treatment except supportive care every 3 months [non-reconstructive group (NRG)]. The primary outcome was the mean radiographic bone change at 12 months; the difference between groups was assessed using Mann-Whitney two-sample tests. Clinical and radiographic parameters were recorded at the initial examination and at 3, 6, and 12 months. Also, patient-reported outcomes were assessed. RESULTS: Overall, 34 patients (implants = 34) completed the study. Both therapies resulted in significant clinical and radiographic changes after 12 months. Disease resolution was achieved in 8 (44.4%) NRG patients and 7 (43.8%) RG patients (p ≥ 0.05) with no significant differences between groups. The groups displayed no significant differences in clinical variables, but radiographic bone fill was ~3× greater in the RG group at 12 months [1.21 (SD 0.92) mm versus 0.36 (SD 0.59) mm], demonstrating statistical significance between the tested groups. CONCLUSIONS: The tested therapeutic modalities demonstrated equal disease resolution. Nevertheless, the marginal bone level gain was significantly greater for sites subjected to reconstructive surgical therapy (NCT05168891-This clinical trial was not registered prior to participant recruitment and randomization).

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)0.003
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
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.478
Teacher spread0.397 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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