Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37592440›Full record

SynthesisClinical and experimental dental research2023

Dental implant treatment for two adjacent missing teeth in the esthetic region: A systematic review and 10-year results of a prospective comparative pilot study.

Henny J A Meijer, Kees Stellingsma, Christiaan W P Pol, Arjan Vissink, Barzi Gareb, Gerry M Raghoebar

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinical and experimental dental research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Impact of Anterior Lithium Disilicate Cantilever Resin-Bonded Fixed Dental Prostheses on Oral Health-Related Quality of Life and Esthetic Outcomes.Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2026
    Observational
  3. Review
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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Henny J A MeijerDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-1702-6031
Kees StellingsmaDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Christiaan W P PolDepartment of Restorative Dentistry, Dental School, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-5179-4563
Arjan VissinkDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-2581-4361
Barzi GarebDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Gerry M RaghoebarDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
University Medical Center Groningen · NL

Funding

Nobel Biocare AB (Göteborg, Sweden) #2004-288
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe aim of the systematic review was to compare studies on implant-supported two-unit cantilever crowns with two adjacent implant-supported crowns in the anterior region. The second aim was to assess in a 10-year prospective comparative pilot study, hard and soft peri-implant tissue changes in patients with a missing central and adjacent lateral upper incisor, treated with either an implant-supported two-unit cantilever crown or two single implant-supported crowns. MATERIALS AND

methodsMedline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched (last search March 1, 2023). Inclusion criteria were studies reporting outcomes of two missing adjacent teeth in the esthetic region and treated with a single implant-supported two-unit cantilever fixed dental prosthesis, or with two solitary implant-supported crowns. Outcome measures assessed included implant survival (primary), changes in marginal bone and gingiva level, restoration survival, subjective and objective esthetic scores, papilla volume, mid-facial marginal mucosa level, probing depth, bleeding on probing, and biological and technical complications with ≥1-year follow-up. In addition, in a 10-year pilot study, the same outcome measures were assessed of five patients with a single implant-supported two-unit cantilever crown and compared with five patients with two adjacent single implant-supported crowns in the esthetic zone.

resultsNine articles with 11 study groups were found eligible for data extraction. Meta-analyses of implant survival rates were 96.9% (mean follow-up 3.4 ± 1.4 years) for the implant-cantilever treatment and 97.6% (mean follow-up 3.0 ± 1.8 years) for the adjacent implants treatment (p = .79). In the 10-year comparative pilot study, no clinically relevant changes in hard and soft peri-implant tissue levels occurred in both groups. Patient satisfaction was also high in both groups.

conclusionSingle implant-supported two-unit crowns can be a viable alternative to the placement of two adjacent single implant crowns in the esthetic zone.

Indexed as

Dental ImplantsDental Implants, Single-ToothEsthetics, DentalHumansPilot ProjectsProspective StudiesTreatment OutcomeDental Implantsadjacent implantscantileveresthetic zonesystematic review

Identifiers

PMID37592440
PMCPMC10728520
OpenAlexW4385968821

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.