A critical review of diabetes, glycemic control, and dental implant therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To systematically examine the evidence guiding the use of implant therapy relative to glycemic control for patients with diabetes and to consider the potential for both implant therapy to support diabetes management and hyperglycemia to compromise implant integration. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic approach was used to identify and review clinical investigations directly assessing implant survival or failure for patients with diabetes. A MEDLINE (PubMED) database search identified potential articles for inclusion using the search strategy: (dental implants OR oral implants) AND (diabetes OR diabetic). Inclusion in this review required longitudinal assessments including at least 10 patients, with included articles assessed relative to documentation of glycemic status for patients. RESULTS: Although the initial search identified 129 publications, this was reduced to 16, for inclusion. Reported implant failure rates for diabetic patients ranged from 0% to 14.3%. The identification and reporting of glycemic control was insufficient or lacking in 13 of the 16 studies with 11 of these enrolling only patients deemed as having acceptable glycemic control, limiting interpretation of findings relative to glycemic control. Three of the 16 studies having interpretable information on glycemic control failed to demonstrate a significant relationship between glycemic control and implant failure, with failure rates ranging from 0% to 2.9%. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical evidence is lacking for the association of glycemic control with implant failure while support is emerging for implant therapy in diabetes patients with appropriate accommodations for delays in implant integration based on glycemic control. The role for implants to improve oral function in diabetes management and the effects of hyperglycemia on implant integration remain to be determined.
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 | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".