Association between diabetes mellitus/hyperglycaemia and peri‐implant diseases: Systematic review and meta‐analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This systematic review investigates whether hyperglycaemia/diabetes mellitus is associated with peri-implant diseases (peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Electronic and manual literature searching was conducted. An a priori case definition for peri-implantitis was used as an inclusion criterion to minimize risk of bias. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used for quality assessment; random effect models were applied; and results were reported according to the PRISMA Statement. RESULTS: Twelve studies were eligible for qualitative and seven of them for quantitative analyses. Meta-analyses detected the risk of peri-implantitis was about 50% higher in diabetes than in non-diabetes (RR = 1.46; 95% CI: 1.21-1.77 and OR = 1.89; 95% CI: 1.31-2.46; z = 5.98; p < .001). Importantly, among non-smokers, those with hyperglycaemia had 3.39-fold higher risk for peri-implantitis compared with normoglycaemia (95% CI: 1.06-10.81). Conversely, the association between diabetes and peri-implant mucositis was not statistically significant (RR = 0.92; 95% CI: 0.72-1.16 and OR = 1.06; 95% CI: 0.84-1.27; z = 1.06, p = .29). CONCLUSIONS: Within its limits that demand great caution when interpreting its findings, this systematic review suggests that diabetes mellitus/hyperglycaemia is associated with greater risk of peri-implantitis, independently of smoking, but not with peri-implant mucositis.
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.024 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it