ArticleClinical implant dentistry and related research2022
Outcome of implants placed to retain craniofacial prostheses - A retrospective cohort study with a follow-up of up to 30 years.
Article in Clinical implant dentistry and related research, 2022. 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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical and Patient Satisfaction Outcomes from Southern Osseointegrated Fixtures for Craniofacial Reconstruction: A Retrospective Study.The Journal of craniofacial surgery · 2026Article
- Assessment of craniofacial implants in restoring facial function and aesthetics.Bioinformation · 2025Article
- The Latest Craniofacial Reconstructive Techniques Using Anchored Implants after Surgical Treatment of Nasal and Paranasal Sinuses Tumors.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Outcome of implants placed to retain craniofacial prostheses - A retrospective cohort study with a follow-up of up to 30 years.Clinical implant dentistry and related research · 2022Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo retrospectively assess the treatment outcomes of endosseous implants placed to retain craniofacial prostheses. MATERIAL AND
methodsPatients with craniofacial defects resulting from congenital disease, trauma, or oncologic treatment had implant retained prostheses placed in the mastoid, orbital, or nasal region and then assessed over a period of up to 30 years. Implant survival rates were calculated with the Kaplan-Meier method. Clinical assessments consisted of scoring skin reactions under the prosthesis and the peri-implant skin reactions. Possible risk factors for implant loss were identified. Patient satisfaction was evaluated using a 10-point VAS-scale.
resultsA total of 525 implants placed in 201 patients were included. The median follow up was 71 months (IQR 28-174 months). Implants placed in the mastoid and nasal region showed the highest overall implant survival rates (10-year implant survival rates of 93.7% and 92.5%, respectively), while the orbital implants had the lowest overall survival rate (84.2%). Radiotherapy was a significant risk factor for implant loss (HR 3.14, p < 0.001). No differences in implant loss were found between pre- and post-operative radiotherapy (p = 0.89). Soft tissue problems were not frequently encountered, and the patients were highly satisfied with their implant-retained prosthesis.
conclusionImplants used to retain craniofacial prostheses have high survival and patient satisfaction rates and can thus be considered as a predictable treatment option. Radiation is the most important risk factor for implant loss.
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.