ArticleJournal of dental sciences2022
Screw-and-cement-retained prosthesis versus cement-retained prosthesis: Which is more appropriate for the upper premolar area?
Article in Journal of dental sciences, 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.
- Biomechanical Evaluation of a Novel Non-Engaging Abutment and Screw in Internal Implant Systems: Comparative Fatigue and Load Testing.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Article
- Article
- Comparison of the accuracy of implant placement using a simple guide device and freehand surgery.Journal of dental sciences · 2024Article
- Full-Mouth Rehabilitation of a Patient with Gummy Smile-Multidisciplinary Approach: Case Report.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/purpose: The narrow alveolar ridge in the maxillary premolars area limits the angle of implant placement and the shape of the prosthesis. The aim of this study was to evaluate which implant prosthesis, screw-and-cement-retained prosthesis (SCRP) or cement-retained prosthesis (CRP), was more suitable for the maxillary premolar area. Materials and methods: We conducted virtual implantation on 58 implant images from 47 patients obtained using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). The width and buccal inclination of the alveolar bone, the angulation of the implant fixture, and the angulation of abutment were measured and calculated. Results: We determined that SCRP was feasible in 52% and 78.8% of first and second premolar areas, respectively. There was a positive relationship between the feasibility of SCRP and the premolar region in general ( Conclusion: SCRP is not always feasible in the maxillary premolar area, especially in the first premolar area. If the difference between the angle of the axis of the prosthesis and the axis of the alveolar bone is large, it may be necessary for the clinician to consider CRP in the treatment planning stage.
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.