ArticleFrontiers in oncology2021
A New Strategy for Patient-Specific Implant-Borne Dental Rehabilitation in Patients With Extended Maxillary Defects.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical performance of additively manufactured subperiosteal implants: a systematic review.International journal of implant dentistry · 2024Pooled it
- Patient-Specific Subperiosteal Implants for Oral and Maxillofacial Rehabilitation: A Scoping Review Across Indications, from Established Full-Arch Use to Emerging Single-Tooth and Oncologic Applications.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Comparison of biomechanical performance of custom implants with different designs under functional load: a finite element analysis.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Innovations Driving the Future of Maxillofacial Prosthetics, Part I: The Technological Leap in Maxillofacial Rehabilitation.European journal of dentistry · 2026Article
- Innovative landing zones for one-piece, rigidly fixated patient-specific subperiosteal implants in dental rehabilitation of severe maxillary and midfacial defects.Head & face medicine · 2025Article
- Primary reconstruction of total maxillectomy defect with additively manufactured subperiosteal implant and fibula free flap: a case report.Oral and maxillofacial surgery · 2025Article
- Subperiosteal Implants: A Lost Art Worth Revisiting?Clinical implant dentistry and related research · 2025Review
- Prosthetically Guided Reconstruction of Maxilla with Free Fibular Flap as a Secondary Reconstruction in Maxillary Defects Caused by Mucormycosis.Journal of maxillofacial and oral surgery · 2024Article
- Personalized subperiosteal implant‑supported obturator for the rehabilitation of rhino‑orbit‑cerebral mucormycosis sequela: A case report.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2024Article
- Exceptional Cases Demand Exceptional Personalized Solutions: The Next Level in Dental Rehabilitation.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Article
- Customized Subperiosteal Implants for the Rehabilitation of Atrophic Jaws: A Consensus Report and Literature Review.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Prosthodontic rehabilitation of patients with a unilateral subtotal maxillectomy using a customised subperiosteal zygomatic implant: a post-COVID-19 mucormycosis.BMJ case reports · 2024Article
- Prosthetic Oral Rehabilitation with CAD/CAM Suprastructures in Patients with Severe Tissue Deficits: A Case Series.Dentistry journal · 2023Article
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
purpose of the studyPatients undergoing ablative tumor surgery of the midface are faced with functional and esthetic issues. Various reconstructive strategies, such as implant-borne obturator prostheses or microvascular tissue transfer, are currently available for dental rehabilitation. The present study shows the first follow-up of patients treated with patient-specific implants (IPS Implants PATIENTS AND
methodsAll patients treated with patient specific implants due to postablative maxillary defects were included. 20 implants were placed in the 19 patients (bilateral implants were placed in one of the cases). In 65.75% of the cases, resection was performed due to squamous cell carcinoma. In addition to the primary stability, the clinical implant stability, soft tissue management, successful prosthodontic restoration, and complications were evaluated at a mean follow-up period of 26 months.
resultsAll patient-specific implants showed primary stability and were clinically stable throughout the observation period. Definitive prosthodontic restorations were performed in all patients. No implant loosening was observed. Major complications occurred only in previously irradiated patients with insufficient soft tissue conditions (
conclusionsTreatment of postablative maxillary defects with patient-specific implants offers a safe alternative with predictable results for full and rapid dental rehabilitation, avoiding time-consuming augmentation procedures and additional donor-site morbidity.
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.