ArticleCureus2022
A Comparative Study Between Hybrid Abutments and Standard Abutments in Implant-Supported Prosthesis: A Split-Mouth Clinical Trial.
Article in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Parameters Influencing Fracture Strength in Implant-Supported Zirconia Restorations: A Scoping Review.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Review
- Influence of Design Parameters on Implant Abutment Performance: A Scoping Review.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Implant-supported prostheses are widely used to replace extracted teeth. Therefore, studies on abutments' designs, shapes, and benefits had increased in recent years, as the design of the standard abutment still poses many problems in periodontal and cosmetic aspects. So, could the hybrid abutment solve some of these problems? Aim We aim to conduct a clinical comparison between standard and hybrid abutments in terms of the state of peri-implant gingival tissues and patients' aesthetic and functional satisfaction after the cementation of the final prostheses. Material and methods The study sample consisted of 10 patients, with 20 dental implants. Each patient received two implants as a standard abutment was placed over one implant and a hybrid abutment was placed over the other. Clinical assessment of the peri-implant gingival tissue and patients' aesthetic and functional satisfaction was performed (immediately, three months, six months, and one year) after the cementation of the final prostheses. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to detect statistically significant differences between groups. Results The percentage of the thick gingival biotype was 80%, and the percentage of the thin gingival biotype was 20% in each group during the follow-up periods. In addition, all papilla fill the whole interdental space in all samples of the two groups after six months and one year. Finally, there were no significant differences in patients' aesthetic satisfaction between groups during one year of follow-up (P = 0.631), and there were no significant differences in patients' functional satisfaction between groups during one year of follow-up (P = 0.684). Conclusion Within the limitations of the current work, there are no differences between standard and hybrid abutments in terms of affecting the peri-implant gingival tissue and patients' aesthetic and functional satisfaction.
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.