ArticleDentistry journal2020
Clinical Evaluation of the Nasopalatine Canal in Implant-Prosthetic Treatment: A Pilot Study.
Article in Dentistry journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of Immediate vs Delayed Dental Implants on Survival, Patient Satisfaction, and Quality of Life.Oral health & preventive dentistry · 2026Trial
- Morphological and morphometric characteristics of the nasopalatine canal in dentate and completely edentulous patients: a cone-beam computed tomography cross-sectional study.Frontiers in oral health · 2026Article
- CBCT Evaluation of Maxillary Incisive Canal Characteristics Among Population in Regard to Possibility of Implant Cortical Anchorage-A Multicenter Study.Dentistry journal · 2025Article
- Morphology and dimensions of the nasopalatine canal in Palestinian patients assessed using cone beam computed tomography.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- How Much is Stable the Bonding of CAD-CAM Implant-Supported All-Ceramic Restorations to Titanium Bases Clinically? A Systematic Review.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry · 2025Review
- Anatomical Factors of the Anterior and Posterior Maxilla Affecting Immediate Implant Placement Based on Cone Beam Computed Tomography Analysis: A Narrative Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Implant-prosthetic rehabilitation of missing teeth in the anterior maxilla is often challenging due to ongoing bone resorption and remodeling events and may require regeneration procedures involving the nasopalatine canal (NPC). We describe a surgical approach with a block graft in relation to the NPC and evaluate clinical performance, sensory perception, and aesthetic result of the implant-prosthetic treatment over a two- to nine-year (mean: 3.5 years) follow-up. Ten implants (six in the right central incisor and four in the left central incisor) were, respectively, placed in 10 consecutive patients with bone defects affecting the NPC and unfavorable widening of the incisive foramen. Treatment stages included: (1) Diagnosis: evaluation of clinical-aesthetic parameters using Cone Beam Computed Tomography; (2) Surgery: block graft placement by palatine and incisal with simultaneous guided bone regeneration, and late (6-10 months) implant placement; (3) Prosthetics: placement of a screw-retained crown (torque of 32 N/cm). At treatment initiation, all the NPCs evaluated in our study were free of pathologies. Treatment evaluation included bone crest thickness, neurosensory status, patients' treatment perception, and pink and white aesthetic scores (PES/WES). Pre-surgery, anterior ridge thickness at the level of the incisive foramen was (mean ± SD) 3.5 ± 2 mm, 5.4 ± 1.5 mm, and 6.1 ± 1.9 mm at heights of 4, 8, and 14 mm apical to the marginal bone crest, respectively. Post-treatment values were, respectively, 10.1 ± 2.0 mm, 10.5 ± 1.0 mm, and 13.4 ± 3.0 mm. The perception of treatment with the aesthetic pink and white indices (PES/WES) was an average of 7.5 and 7 points, respectively, out of a total of 10 each index, with a recovery of 100% of the neurosensory perception of the area. We propose that bone augmentation using block and particulate graft material can compensate for anatomical variations in the NPC, optimize implant's three-dimensional positioning and improve facial contour, providing tissue and implant stability and good aesthetic outcomes.
Indexed as
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.