ArticleActa stomatologica Croatica2023
Tooth-Implant-Supported Prosthetic Structures Versus Implant-Supported Restorations.
Article in Acta stomatologica Croatica, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- Biomechanical Analysis of Stress Distribution and Force Dynamics in Nobel Active Implants at Varying Angulations: A Finite Element Study.Acta stomatologica Croatica · 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
3 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The primary aim was to compare the amount of bone height change that occurs around the tooth and the implant when having tooth-implant-supported prosthetic restorations versus bone height change that appears around implants in only implant-supported prosthetic restorations. The secondary aim was to examine the influence of various factors such as the number of teeth involved in the construction, their endodontic treatment, number of implants, the type of implantology construction, the jaw in which the construction is located, the condition of the opposite jaw, gender, age, and working time, as well as to examine whether the initial bone level influenced the amount of change in bone height itself. Materials and methods: With a total of 50 respondents, 25 X-ray panoramic images were representing tooth-implant-supported prosthetic restorations, while the other 25 were representing implant-supported prosthetic restorations. Bone measures were taken (from enamel-cement junction/implant neck to the most apical bone point) from 2 panoramic radiographs. The first one is immediately after the implant placement and the second and the last one again in half a year up to seven years after, depending on the time when the photo was taken for each patient. The obtained difference represented the bone resorption, the bone formation, or a state without change. Influence of different factors, such as sex, age of the patient, working time, the number of teeth involved in the construction, endodontic treatment, number of implants, the type of implant construction, the jaw where the construction is located, the condition of the opposite jaw, as well as the initial bone condition, was examined. During the statistical analysis, frequency tables, basic statistical parameters, the Mann-Whitney U test, the Kruskal-Wallis Anova, Wilcoxon test, and regression analysis were used, and the results were presented in tabular form and the form of the Pareto diagram of t-values. Results: No statistically significant difference in bone change (whether we are talking about the place of the implant (-0.359±1.009 and median value 0.000), the place of a tooth (-0.428±0.746 and median value -0,150) in tooth-implant supported restorations, or the place of the implant in case of implant-supported structures (-0,059±0,200 and median value -0,120)) was proven. When talking about the influence of other factors, by regression analysis, the number of implants was shown to be the only factor with a statistically significant influence (β=0.54; P=0.019) in a change of bone level, but only when talking about implant-supported restorations. Conclusion: No significant difference was proven between bone height change, neither around the tooth nor the implant in tooth-implant-supported prosthetic restorations compared to the bone height changes around the implant in only implant-supported prosthetic restorations. Among all the examined factors, the number of implants has shown to have statistically significant contribution to the amount of bone height change in implant-supported prosthetic restorations.
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.