ReviewAnnals of maxillofacial surgery
Consensus Regarding 16 Recognized and Clinically Proven Methods and Sub-Methods for Placing Corticobasal
Review in Annals of maxillofacial surgery. 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.
- Immediate Rehabilitation of Critical-Size Gunshot- and Mine Blast-Related Maxillary Defects Using Cortically Anchored Single-Piece Implants: Two Case Reports.Reports (MDPI) · 2026Article
- Comprehensive Oral Rehabilitation With Corticobasal Implants: Restoring Function and Aesthetics.Cureus · 2026Article
- A practical approach to orofacial rehabilitation in a patient after inferior maxillectomy and rhinectomy with mono framework construction supported on a zygomatic implant placed in the glabella: a case report.Maxillofacial plastic and reconstructive surgery · 2021Article
- Success Rate of Immediate Functional Loading Implants over a Period of 5 Years - A Retrospective Study.Annals of maxillofacial surgeryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This Consensus-Document is issued by the International Implant Foundation (Munich/Germany). It describes distinct methods of placement of cortico-basal oral implants in different areas of the jaw bone and the maxillo-facial skeleton. The implants utilize the method of "osseofixation" instead of "osseointegration" for achieving primary, functional stability, hence they work according to the (AO-) principles of fracture treatment. The concept of the technology allows for immediate functional loading, just as it allows for various types of loading following orthopaedic surgery. The 16 methods and sub-methods as described and displayed here have been undergoing extensive observation and testing and they have been approved by the Board of the International Implant Foundation. All Consensus Documents of the International Implant Foundation are revised every three years. This is the 3rd version of the Consensus Document on placement of corticobasal oral implants
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.