Evidence for the association between psychological stress and peri-implant health among middle-aged and elderly adults: A systemic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic psychological stress (CPS) is increasingly recognized for its detrimental effects on systemic and oral health, yet its impact on peri-implantitis remains underexplored. AIM: To evaluate the evidence linking CPS to peri-implantitis. METHODS: This systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. Publications searching PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov for human studies published in English from 1983 to December 2024. Additionally, quality assessment of selected full-text articles were performed using the modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: From an initial total of 3964 studies, 4 cross-sectional studies comprising 432 participants met the inclusion criteria and consistently demonstrated a positive association between CPS and peri-implantitis. However, the findings are compromised by small sample sizes, study design limitations, methodological heterogeneity, and inadequate adjustment for critical confounders such as smoking and prior periodontitis. CONCLUSION: Cortisol levels in peri-implant sulcus fluid were linearly correlated with probing depth, with evidence suggesting this relationship may be independent of hyperglycemia. Depression emerged as the most significant CPS subtype associated with peri-implantitis. Additionally, CPS may amplify peri-implantitis inflammation by modulating cytokine expression effects. Long-term studies with larger, more diverse patient populations and careful control of confounding variables are needed to establish causality and understand the underlying mechanisms. Including psychological evaluations and stress management techniques in peri-implant care protocols could improve treatment outcomes and patient health.
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 | 0.006 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".