ArticleJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry2018
Multidisciplinary oral rehabilitation in partially edentulous adult patients with malocclusion: A cross-sectional survey study.
Article in Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Rehabilitation of Complex Iatrogenic Prosthodontic Failures: A Case Report on Comprehensive Full-Mouth Reconstruction.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA cross-sectional survey was conducted to gather information regarding the opinion of Brazilian specialists in both orthodontics and implantology on multidisciplinary oral rehabilitation in partially edentulous patients with malocclusion. MATERIAL AND
methodsA total of 305 specialists participated in a telephone survey and answered an ad hoc 10-item questionnaire, including the request of total skull cone-beam tomographies (CBCT) and the use of 3D digital planning software, the best moment of treatment to place dental implants, and the integration of orthodontics in implantology.
resultsMost participants did not request CBCT (90.8%) or 3D digital planning software images (92.3%) to diagnose and plan multidisciplinary oral rehabilitation. By contrast, 91.1% of participants would use an already dental implant as anchorage for orthodontics, 73.8% had already used implants for this purpose, 47.9% selected 4 months as the waiting time between implant placement and its use as anchorage, and 58.4% had already placed dental implants having in mind using them as anchorage for orthodontics and anticipating the oral rehabilitation process. Moreover, 93.4% of participants stated to avoid applying orthodontic forces in implants with unfavourable prognosis. A total of 67.9% of participants got the degree of specialist in Orthodontics before that of specialist in Implantology. The main reason for obtaining the other specialty degree was to be able to thoroughly exercise the two specialties.
conclusionsThe use of technological advances, such as CBCT and 3D digital planning software was limited. Most dental specialists would wait the osseointegration recommended time before applying orthodontic forces and thus using them as anchorage for orthodontics. The majority of interviewed dentists sought the other specialty to acquire multidisciplinary knowledge.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.