ArticleClinical and experimental dental research2023
Prospective evaluation of implants-supported, tooth-implant supported, and teeth-supported 3-unit posterior monolithic zirconia fixed restorations: Bite force and patient satisfaction.
Article 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 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dental Implantation Changes the Bone Morphology and Mineral Density of Human Mandibular Condyle: A Pilot Study.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Article
- Long-term outcomes and complication rates of tooth-implant-supported fixed dental prostheses: A retrospective cohort study.Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists · 2025Article
- Marginal Fit and Fracture Resistance of Vertical Versus Horizontal Margins in Monolithic Zirconia Crowns.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2025Article
- Analysis of Strain Distribution in Common Clinical Designs of Posterior Implant-Supported Fixed Partial Restorations: Comparison between Six Configurations.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2024Article
- Effect of ceramic materials and tooth preparation design on computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing endocrown adaptation and retentive strength: An in vitro study.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2024Article
- Prospective evaluation of implants-supported, tooth-implant supported, and teeth-supported 3-unit posterior monolithic zirconia fixed restorations: Bite force and patient satisfaction.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to evaluate the maximum bite force (MBF) and satisfaction of patients restored with implants, combined tooth-implants, and teeth-supported monolithic zirconia fixed dental prostheses (FDPs). MATERIALS AND
methodsThirty partially edentulous patients in need of three units of FDPs in their mandibular posterior region were divided into three equal groups (n = 10) as follows: Group-1 patients received two implants for each at the second premolar and second molar regions, Group-2 patients received one implant for each at the second molar region, and Group-3 patients with missing lower first molar. All the restorations were constructed from monolithic zirconia. Patients were evaluated 1 week after placement of restorations (baseline) and then after 6, 12, and 24-month intervals for MBF using force transducer occlusal force meter and satisfaction (function, esthetic, and overall satisfaction) using a visual analog scale.
resultsThe mean MBF for Group 1 was higher than Group 2 (p = .044) but not that of Group 3 (p = .923). Additionally, Group 3 displayed a higher MBF than Group 2, although this difference was not statistically significant (p = .096). Concerning patient satisfaction, all study groups reported high levels of satisfaction across all satisfaction elements, and no significant differences were observed between the groups.
conclusionWithin the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that Group 1 gives comparable anticipated treatment outcomes as Group 3 concerning biting force and patient satisfaction. However, Group 2 gives comparable satisfaction results with biting force value within the normal range; thus, it might be used as a treatment option in a specific situation.
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.