ArticleJournal of oral biology and craniofacial research
Dental implants in growing patients: A quality assessment of systematic reviews.
Article in Journal of oral biology and craniofacial research. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Implants in Adolescents: Clinical Outcomes After Growth-Pattern-Adapted Implant Placement.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Full Zirconia Resin-Bonded Fixed Dental Prosthesis: A Clinical Report.Clinical case reports · 2025Article
- Clinical Efficacy of CBCT and 3D-Printed Replicas in Molar Autotransplantation: A Controlled Clinical Trial.Dental traumatology : official publication of International Association for Dental Traumatology · 2025Article
- The Diagnosis and Management of Infraoccluded Deciduous Molars: A Systematic Review.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Dental implants in the recent past have become indispensable in restoring loss of space and support as well as aiding the aesthetics. Although in practice for a few years there is no consensus on the protocols for placement and usage of dental implants in growing jaws. Objective: The present study aims to evaluate evidence-based literature on single or multiple dental implant placements in children(up to 17 years) and to identify areas lacking and gaps in knowledge. The quality assessment tool,namely AMSTAR-2, will also aim to evaluate the quality of said research around paediatric dental implants. Design: The study was prospectively registered on the Open Science Framework https://osf.io/e59bt/?view_only=ec8fb69455c240ecbfc7379734784bf7.For source selection, electronic searches were performed on MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus databases as well as Google Scholar for all English language systematic reviews and meta analysis on dental implants placed on children up to 17yrs of age by 2 reviewers, wherein the publications until December 2020 were included. A final dataset of 4 systematic reviews were incorporated and analysed using the AMSTAR-2 grading tool. Results: It was seen that only one study showed moderate overall confidence while one low overall confidence as per the AMSTAR-2. The other 2 systematic reviews were of critically low confidence levels. Hence, the existing systematic reviews on the subject are not of high quality. Most of the reviews have no consensus regarding use and placement of implants in growing patients. Conclusion: More research and stricter adherence to the quality assessment guidelines is recommended for all future systematic reviews regarding dental implant in children.
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.