ArticleAmerican journal of translational research2021
The application of locking-taper implants in posterior area implant restoration with insufficient occlusal-gingival distances.
Article in American journal of translational research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWe aimed to investigate the effect of locking-taper implants on restoration in the posterior teeth area with insufficient occlusal-gingival distances.
methodsForty-five patients undergoing dental implants in our hospital with occlusal-gingival distances under 5 mm in the posterior teeth area were recruited for this retrospective study. A total of 78 locking-taper implants were implanted in these patients. The patients were followed up for two years to observe the implant retention rate, the implant bone heights at different time points after the restoration, and the effects of the different implant placement depths on the marginal bone mass at the implants. Meanwhile, we evaluated the peri-implant soft tissue status by measuring the modified plaque index, the gingival index, and probing the depths. The postoperative complications and the patient satisfaction levels were also analyzed.
resultsDuring the 2-year follow-up, the patients' implant retention rate was 100.00%. The implant placement depths did not affect the marginal bone masses at the implants at T0-T1 or T1-T2 (T0: the day after the restoration, T1: at one year after the restoration, T2: at two years after the restoration, all P>0.05). The peri-implant soft tissues in most of the patients were in good condition, and only a few patients had a small amount of plaque or slight gingival swelling. The average probe depth was 3.23±1.20 mm during the follow-up. Only one patient had abutment loosening, and one had a dental prosthesis fall off. The patients did not feel any numbness, continuous pain, or other abnormalities during the follow-up, and the overall patient satisfaction rate was over 97.78%.
conclusionLocking-taper implants can achieve good clinical outcomes in the restoration of the posterior area with insufficient occlusal-gingival distances. The implants can achieve a high implant retention rate, have no adverse effects on the peri-implant soft tissues, have a low complication rate, cause no significant marginal bone mass loss at the implants, and have a high patient satisfaction rate.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34306485PMC8290773W3183724437What 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.