Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31915946›Full record

Article3D printing in medicine2020

Custom-made 3D printed subperiosteal titanium implants for the prosthetic restoration of the atrophic posterior mandible of elderly patients: a case series.

Carlo Mangano, Andrea Bianchi, Francesco Guido Mangano, Jessica Dana, Marco Colombo, Ivan Solop, Oleg Admakin

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in 3D printing in medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
14.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

50 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 111 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Carlo ManganoDepartment of Dental Sciences, University Vita Salute S. Raffaele, 20132, Milan, Italy.
Andrea BianchiDepartment of Periodontology and Implantology, Istituto Stomatologico Italiano, 20122, Milan, Italy.
Francesco Guido ManganoDepartment of Prevention and Communal Dentistry, Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, 119991, Moscow, Russia. francescomangano1@mclink.net.
Jessica DanaPrivate Practice, 6918, Lugano, Switzerland.
Marco ColomboPrivate Practice, 21100, Varese, Italy.
Ivan SolopDepartment of Prevention and Communal Dentistry, Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, 119991, Moscow, Russia.
Oleg AdmakinDepartment of Prevention and Communal Dentistry, Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, 119991, Moscow, Russia.
Sechenov University · RUFondazione Audiologica Varese · ITItalian Society of Periodontology and Implantology · ITVita-Salute San Raffaele University · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo present the application of custom-made 3D-printed subperiosteal implants for fixed prosthetic restoration of the atrophic posterior mandible of elderly patients.

methodsBetween January 2017 and June 2018, all partially edentulous patients aged over 65 years, with two or more missing teeth in the posterior atrophic mandible, and who did not want to undergo bone regenerative procedures, were included in this study. These patients were rehabilitated with custom-made subperiosteal implants, designed from cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and fabricated in titanium by means of direct metal laser sintering (DMLS). The outcome measures were fit and stability of the implants at placement, duration of the intervention, implant survival, and early and late complications. All patients were followed for 1 year after surgery.

resultsTen patients (four males, six females; mean age 69.6, SD ± 2.8, median 69, 95% CI 67.9-71.6) were included in the study. The fit of the implants was satisfactory, with a mean rating of 7 out of 10 (SD ± 1.6, median 7, 95% CI 6-8). Only two implants had insufficient fit, because of the presence of scattering in the CBCT; however, they were adapted to the sites during the interventions. The mean duration of the intervention was 44.3 min (SD ± 19.4, median 37, 95% CI 32.3-56.3). At the one-year follow-up, no implants were lost (survival rate 100%). One implant presented immediate postoperative complications with pain, discomfort and swelling, and two patients experienced late complications, having their provisional restorations fractured during the temporisation phase. All these complications were minor in nature, but the final complication rate amounted to 30% (three of ten patients).

conclusionsAlthough this study has limits (small patient sample and short follow-up), DMLS has proven to be an effective method for fabricating accurate subperiosteal implants, with high survival rates. This may represent an alternative treatment procedure in elderly patients with a severely atrophic posterior mandible, since it allows avoidance of regenerative bone therapies. Further studies are needed to confirm these outcomes.

Indexed as

Atrophic posterior mandibleCustom-madeDirect metal laser sintering (DMLS)Elderly patientsSubperiosteal implants

Identifiers

PMID31915946
PMCPMC6950914
OpenAlexW2999934826

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.