Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35763401›Full record

ArticleClinical oral implants research2022

Narrow diameter implants to replace congenital missing maxillary lateral incisors: A 1-year prospective, controlled, clinical study.

Andrea Roccuzzo, Jean-Claude Imber, Jakob Lempert, Mandana Hosseini, Simon Storgård Jensen

Erratum issuedOpen access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical oral implants research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 19 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Rehabilitation in Cases of Maxillary Lateral Incisor Agenesis Using Zirconia Implant and Abutment: Finite Element Analysis and Systematic Review.Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. CORRIGENDUM.Clinical oral implants research · 2022
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Andrea RoccuzzoDepartment of Periodontology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8079-0860
Jean-Claude ImberDepartment of Periodontology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Jakob LempertDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Mandana HosseiniResearch Area Oral Rehabilitation, Section for Oral Health, Society and Technology, Institute of Odontology, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8768-274X
Simon Storgård JensenDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3519-4103
University of Bern · CHUniversity of Copenhagen · DKCopenhagen University Hospital · DK

Funding

ITI Foundation n 1151_2016
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo report the clinical, radiographic, esthetic, and patient-reported outcomes after placement of a newly developed narrow-diameter implant (NDI) in patients with congenitally missing lateral incisors (MLIs). MATERIALS AND

methodsPatients with MLIs with a mesio-distal distance between the canine and the central incisor of 5.9-6.3 mm received a dental implant with a diameter of 2.9 mm (Test), while a diameter of 3.3 mm (Control) was used when the distance was 6.4-7.1 mm. After healing, a cement-retained bi-layered zirconia crown was fabricated. At the 1-year follow-up (T2), implant survival rate, marginal crestal bone level (CBL) changes, biological and technical complications were registered. The esthetic outcome was assessed by using the Copenhagen index score, and the patient-reported outcomes were recorded using the OHIP-49 questionnaire.

resultsOne hundred patients rehabilitated with 100 dental implants Ø0.9 mm (n = 50) or Ø3.3 mm (n = 50) were included. One Ø3.3 mm implant was lost, and seven patients dropped out of the study, yielding an implant survival rate of 99% (p = 1.000). At T2 a. CBL of -0.19 ± 0.25 mm (Test) and -0.25 ± 0.31 mm (Control) was detected, with no statistically significant difference between the groups (p = .342). Good to excellent esthetic scores (i.e., 1-2) were recorded in most of cases. Technical complications (i.e., loss of retention, abutment fracture, and chipping of veneering ceramic) occurred once in three patients with no statistically significant difference between the groups (p > .05). OHIP scores did not differ significantly at follow-ups between groups (p = .110).

conclusionThe use of Ø2.9 mm diameter implants represents as reliable a treatment option as Ø3.3 mm implants, in terms of CBL changes, biological and technical complications. Favorable esthetics and patient-reported outcomes were recorded for both groups.

Indexed as

Dental ImplantsDental Implants, Single-ToothCrownsEsthetics, DentalIncisorProspective StudiesDental Implantsclinical researchclinical trialsdental implantspatient centered outcomesprosthodontics

Identifiers

PMID35763401
PMCPMC9544295
OpenAlexW4283691205

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.