ArticleClinical oral investigations2023
Root-analogue implants compared to forced orthodontic extrusion: a retrospective analysis of clinical, radiological and esthetic outcomes after restoration.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2023. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Awareness, attitudes and cost among patients for dental implants in teeth replacement.Bioinformation · 2024Article
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 at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess clinical, radiological and esthetic outcomes of restorations supported by root-analogue implants (RAIs) or roots of severely damaged teeth after forced orthodontic extrusion (FOE). MATERIALS AND
methodsClinical data regarding milled one-piece (titanium/zirconia roots and zirconia abutments) RAIs (REPLICATE™ System) and FOE were recorded and retrospectively evaluated for 40 patients by two investigators. Strict inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied. Functional and esthetic outcomes were assessed for n = 20 pre-molars and n = 20 anterior teeth via comparison of radiographic and digital images applying the novel Functional Implant Prosthodontic Score (FIPS). Krippendorff's alpha coefficient was calculated to assess inter-rater reliability. Mann-Whitney-U-Test was used to compare the assessed parameters. Level of significance was set to p < 0.05.
resultsAfter a mean observation period of 18.4 ± 5.7 months for restorations supported by RAIs and 43.9 ± 16.4 months for restorations after FOE, mean FIPS scores were 9.2/8.8 ± 1.1/1.2 (RAIs) and 7.4/7.7 ± 1.3/1.5 (FOE), respectively. Krippendorff's alpha coefficients did not reveal unacceptable inter-rater reliabilities regarding the investigators and applicability of FIPS. Significant differences were documented when comparing restorations after FOE or supported by RAIs regarding bone loss (p < 0.01), presence of papillae (p < 0.05) and quality and quantity of mucosa (p < 0.02) in favor of FOE.
conclusionsWithin the main limitations of sample size and the retrospective study design, both concepts seem to provide clinically acceptable results. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Bone- and tissue-preserving characteristics regarding the concept of FOE are promising. It could be applicable for socket preservation and subsequent conventional implant placements in an adapted workflow.
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.