Objective: The goal of the present study was to evaluate the effect of low intensity laser application on alveolar bone of implant supported fixed prosthesis in osteoporotic patients with cement retained versus screw retained restorations. Materials and methods: The current study was performed on diagnosed and treated osteoporotic female patients with age ranging from 55-65 years, indicated for 20 single tooth restoration in the upper premolar region. The patients were divided into two equal groups; group I (Non Lased group), ten implants did not receive any laser therapy during healing phase; where healing phase was left to progress spontaneously without any intervention. Group II (lased group); ten implants received low intensity laser therapy in sessions during the healing phase that followed implant insertion. Each group had been subdivided into two subgroups: subgroup A; five implants were restored with cement-retained implant supported crowns. Subgroup B; five implants were restored with screw-retained implant supported crowns. For each patient, preoperative clinical and radiographic examinations were performed. All implants were inserted following the two stage surgical protocol. The surgical implant procedure were performed under local anesthesia, starting by flap design and reflection, the prefabricated surgical stent was used to guide the pilot drill and then the implant bed was prepared sequentially using drills supplied by the manufacturer under sterile saline irrigation. Finally, the flap was repositioned and sutured. The laser used in this study was gallium arsenide diode laser which was applied to patients of group II (laser group) in four sessions on two alternative days (two sessions per day with two hours between them) started from the eighth post-operative day (after removal of the sutures). In each session, the laser device was pre-adjusted to deliver a laser beam with an output power of 2 (watt) and a frequency of 3000 (Hertz) for 5 minutes. For each patient, radiographic evaluation was performed at 0, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months following implant placement. Radiographic evaluation included the use of the Digora direct digital system for evaluating the changes in marginal bone height and density around the implants. Data were tabulated and statistically analyzed. Results: The results of the study showed that the low bone density scores of osteoporotic female patients as quantified by DEXA scores did not affect osseointegration rate of dental implants. The results of the study revealed significant bone changes between the lased and non-lased groups during the follow-up period. In the lased patients, the alveolar bone height was preserved and the bone density was increased. On the other hand, the non-lased patients showed decrease in both alveolar bone height and density. Conclusion: From the results of the present study, the following conclusions could be drawn: Osteoporotic patients may be considered promising candidates for successful implant therapy. Low bone density scores of osteoporotic female patients as quantified by DEXA scores does not affect osseointegration rate of dental implants.