Surface Decontamination on the Reconstructive Therapy of Peri‐Implantitis: A Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Objective To compare the clinical/radiographic outcomes and the rate of disease resolution of the adjunctive use of electrolysis (GS) or hydrogen peroxide (HP) for mechanical decontamination in the reconstructive treatment of peri‐implantitis‐related intrabony defects. Material and Methods A multicenter randomized clinical trial was designed to compare the effectiveness and safety of two strategies for the surface decontamination of crater‐like and circumferential intrabony defects subjected to reconstructive therapy. Clinical evaluation was made at baseline (T 0 ), 6 months (T 1 ) and 12 months (T 2 ), while radiographic assessment was carried out at T 0 and T 2 . Disease resolution was the primary outcome. Supportive therapy was administered following surgical treatment. Simple and multiple generalized estimating equations (GEE) models were applied to compare the outcomes achieved and to explore potential confounders. Post hoc power calculation was performed to validate the statistical power of the findings. Results Overall, 58 patients completed the study. All the clinical parameters/indices, namely probing pocket depth, modified sulcular bleeding index, suppuration grading index, and width of keratinized mucosa, showed a significant reduction ( p < 0.001) from T 0 to T 2 in both tested groups. Mucosal recession increased ( p < 0.001) from T 0 to T 2 . Marginal bone level and radiographic defect angle increased ( p < 0.001) from T 0 to T 2 . The disease resolution rate was 87.5% for the GS group and 64.5% for the HP group at T 2 ( p = 0.08). No major postoperative complications were reported. Conclusion Both tested surface decontamination methods are effective in resolving peri‐implantitis, in gaining radiographic marginal bone levels, and in enhancing clinical peri‐implant conditions in the surgical reconstructive therapy (NCT05615051).
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".