Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37703213›Full record

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.

Sadeq Altayyar, Walid Al-Zordk, Radwan Algabri, Eshraq Rajah, Abdulsattar Al-Baadani, Ahmed Yaseen Alqutaibi, Manal Abo Madina, Mohammed H Ghazy

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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 · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

8 authors.

Sadeq AltayyarProsthodontic Department, Faculty of Dentistry, IBB University, Ibb, Yemen.
Walid Al-ZordkFixed Prosthodontic Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt.
Radwan AlgabriProsthodontic Department, Faculty of Dentistry, IBB University, Ibb, Yemen.ORCID 0009-0006-5962-6907
Eshraq RajahProsthodontic Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Sana'a University, Sana'a, Yemen.
Abdulsattar Al-BaadaniFixed Prosthodontic Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Dhamar University, Dhamar, Yemen.
Ahmed Yaseen AlqutaibiDepartment of Prosthodontic and Implant Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Taibah University, Al Madinah, Saudi Arabia.
Manal Abo MadinaFixed Prosthodontic Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt.
Mohammed H GhazyFixed Prosthodontic Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Dental ImplantsPatient SatisfactionBite ForceHumansZirconiumDental ImplantsZirconiumzirconium oxidebiting forceimplantmonolithic zirconiapatient satisfaction

Identifiers

PMID37703213
PMCPMC10582233

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.