Osteoporosis and Apical Periodontitis Prevalence: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Osteoporosis is a common systemic bone disorder in the elderly, characterized by low bone mineral density and deterioration of bone structure. Apical periodontitis is an inflammatory response to the microbial infection of root canals, typically characterized by apical bone destruction surrounding the tooth's apex. This systematic review aimed to determine if osteoporosis affects the prevalence of apical periodontitis in adults. PRISMA guidelines have been followed. It included randomized clinical trials, cross-sectional, cohort, and case-control studies, and excluded non-relevant investigations and various secondary sources. A comprehensive search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, until 13 March 2024. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the quality of the three selected studies: two cross-sectional studies and one case-control study. One investigation only included post-menopausal women recruited at a dental university clinic, the other integrated data from the total hospital patients' population, and the third selected patients referred to the university dental clinic from the university hospital. The findings varied: one study noted a marginal association between low bone mineral density and apical periodontitis, another found a significant association, and the third, with the lowest risk of bias, reported no link. The main limitations were the scarcity of eligible studies and their overall quality. The review was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42024523705), applied strict inclusion criteria and thorough searches by experienced and independent reviewers. There is no strong evidence that adult individuals with osteoporosis have a higher probability of developing apical periodontitis. However, clinicians should remain cautious of osteoporosis's potential impact on apical periodontitis development.
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 | 0.008 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".