Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37427363›Full record

ArticleActa stomatologica Croatica2023

Tooth-Implant-Supported Prosthetic Structures Versus Implant-Supported Restorations.

Marieta Bujak, Ivan Brakus, Ratka Borić

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 88% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Marieta BujakDental Studio Burow.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9926-3203
Ivan BrakusThe University of Split, School of Medicine.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3208-5091
Birmingham Dental Hospital · GBUniversity of Dental Medicine · MMUniversity of Split · HR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Alveolar Bone LossBone-Implant InterfaceBone resorption comparisonDental Prosthesis, Implant-SupportedHybrid bridgeImplant-supported constructionsMeSH Terms: Bone ResorptionToothimplant connection

Identifiers

PMID37427363
PMCPMC10323935
OpenAlexW4382400756

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.