Prevalence of Peri-implant Diseases in Patients with Osteoporosis: a Systematic Review
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
Objectives: This systematic review aimed to determine the prevalence of peri-implant diseases in patients affected by osteoporosis rehabilitated with dental implants. Material and Methods: An electronic search was conducted in the MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases up to April 2025, complemented by a manual search of the reference lists from the full-text studies. The search included observational studies that identified peri-implantitis and/or peri-implant mucositis in patients affected by osteoporosis rehabilitated with dental implants. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa tool. Results: A total of 10, from 321, articles were included, and the reported evaluation periods after implant placement ranged from 3 to 11 years. Regardless of age, sex, number of implants, implant location, or duration of oral bisphosphonate use, all studies investigating the presence of mucositis and/or peri-implantitis reported no higher prevalence compared to systemically healthy patients. The prevalence of peri-implantitis was found to be 22%, and peri-implant mucositis 20%, in patients affected by osteoporosis. Conclusions: Within the limits of this systematic review, it is concluded that osteoporosis does not increase the prevalence of peri-implant diseases or dental implant failure.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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