ArticleClinical implant dentistry and related research2021
General health status of Dutch elderly receiving implant-retained overdentures: A 9-year big data cross-sectional study.
Article in Clinical implant dentistry and related research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of remimazolam and dexmedetomidine for conscious sedation in elderly patients undergoing dental implant surgery: a prospective randomized controlled trial.BMC geriatrics · 2025Trial
- Prediction of lifespan and assessing risk factors of large-sample implant prostheses: a multicenter study.The journal of advanced prosthodontics · 2024Article
- Survival Rates and Clinical Outcomes of Implant Overdentures in Old and Medically Compromised Patients.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- General health status of Dutch elderly receiving implant-retained overdentures: A 9-year big data cross-sectional study.Clinical implant dentistry and related research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundVery little information is available on the general health of elderly who are provided with an implant-retained overdenture (IOD). PURPOSE: The general health status of three groups of elderly (≥75 years) were compared: those with a natural dentition (ND), those treated with an implant-retained overdenture (IOD), and those wearing a conventional denture (CD). MATERIALS AND
methodsData on healthcare costs were obtained from records of Dutch health insurers that are collected by Vektis. Data on general health (chronic diseases, medication use, and polypharmacy) were acquired for elderly patients with a ND, an IOD, and a CD in 2009 and 2017. Data on the general health of elderly who received an IOD were also acquired from 2010 through 2016.
resultsOn average, the general health of elderly who received an IOD was comparable to general health of elderly with a ND and was better than the general health of elderly with a CD (lower prevalence of diabetes, cardiac disease, and hypertension). The general health profile of elderly receiving an IOD was consistent during all years.
conclusionsThe general health of elderly with a ND or IODs is better than those with CDs.
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.