Microbiota associated with peri-implantitis a systematic review with meta-analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
O objetivo dessa revisão sistemática com meta-análise é responder à seguinte pergunta PECO: \"Em indivíduos sistemicamente saudáveis (P), quais são as diferenças entre peri-implantite (E) e saúde/mucosite peri-implantar (C) em termos de presença/contagem bacteriana (O)?\" Foram consultadas as bases de dados MEDLINE, SCOPUS, Web of Science e EMBASE, tendo sido incluídos na revisão sistemática estudos transversais que preencheram critérios de inclusão específicos estabelecidos para responder à pergunta PECO, publicados até outubro de 2022. Dois revisores independentes realizaram as buscas, examinaram títulos e resumos, analisaram o texto completo, extraíram os dados dos estudos incluídos e avaliaram o risco de viés por meio de uma adaptação da ferramenta Newcastle/Ottawa para estudos transversais e da lista de verificação de avaliação crítica do JBI para estudos analíticos transversais. Em caso de desacordo, um terceiro revisor tomou a decisão final. Os resultados dos estudos foram resumidos usando meta-análises de efeitos aleatórios. Foram incluídos na revisão sistemática 12 estudos, envolvendo 1.233 participantes e 1.513 implantes. A peri-implantite foi associada à presença de S. epidermidis (Odds Ratio, OR=10,28 [Intervalo de Confiança de 95%, IC: 1,26 a 83,98]), F. nucleatum (OR=7,83 [IC 95%: 2,24 a 27,36]), T. denticola (OR=6,11 [IC 95%: 2,72 a 13,76]), T. forsythia (OR=4,25 [IC 95%: 1,71 a 10,57]), P. intermedia (OR=3,79 [IC 95%: 1,07 a 13,35]) e P. gingivalis (OR=2,46 [IC 95%: 1,21 a 5,00]). Por outro lado, a presença de A. actinomycetemcomitans (OR=3,82 [IC 95%: 0,59 a 24,68]), S. aureus (OR=1,05 [IC 95%: 0,06 a 17,08]) e C. rectus (OR=1,48 [IC 95%: 0,69 a 3,17]) não foi associada à peri-implantite. Esses achados sugerem que a peri-implantite está associada à presença de S. epidermidis e de periodontopatógenos específicos (P. gingivalis, T. forsythia, T. denticola, F. nucleatum e P. intermedia). (CRD42021254589).
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 | 0.018 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.030 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".