ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022
Retrospective Evaluation of Implants Placed in Iliac Crest Autografts and Pristine Bone.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Delayed implant rehabilitation following iliac crest grafting for traumatic dentoalveolar defects: a prospective single-arm interventional clinical study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Peri-Implant Health and Perfusion Parameters in Patients After Microvascular Jaw Reconstruction: A Clinical Cohort Study.Clinical implant dentistry and related research · 2025Article
- New Subperiosteal Dental Implant Design with Finite Element Analysis and Mechanical Validation: A Design Validation Study.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveIliac crest autografts can compensate for severe mandibular atrophy before implant placement. However, the implant success in the augmented bone is not entirely predictable. Here we performed a retrospective cohort study to determine the success and related parameters of implants placed in augmented bone and pristine bone for up to 11 years. MATERIAL AND
methodsWe analyzed 18 patients where 72 implants were placed six months after iliac crest transplantation and 19 patients where 76 implants were placed in pristine bone. The primary endpoint was implant loss. Secondary endpoints were the implant success, peri-implant bone loss, and the clinical parameters related to peri-implantitis. Moreover, we evaluated the oral-health-related quality of life (OHIP).
resultsWithin a mean follow-up of 5.8 ± 2.2 and 7.6 ± 2.8 years, six but no implants were lost when placed in augmented and pristine bone, respectively. Among those implants remaining in situ, 58% and 68% were rated as implant success (
conclusionsImplants placed in iliac crest autografts have a higher risk for implant loss and lower implant success rates compared to those placed in the pristine bone.
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.