ArticleJournal of personalized medicine2023
Clinical Efficacy Analysis of the Personalization of Prosthetic Abutments in Implant Supported Restorations in Comparison to Available Standard Titanium Abutments.
Article in Journal of personalized medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Defining the influence of digitalization on the future of dentistry through an educational handbook for Computer Aided Design tool training.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Influence of Design Parameters on Implant Abutment Performance: A Scoping Review.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Review
- A Microscopy Evaluation of Emergence Profile Surfaces of Dental Custom CAD-CAM Implant Abutments and Dental Implant Stock Abutments.Journal of personalized medicine · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Personalized medicine has become an important direction to offer better solutions for health problems. In implantology, this trend was materialized through customizing dental abutments to each clinical situation. The demands for better esthetics and function of implant-supported restorations have imposed a more personalized variety of prosthetic abutments. This retrospective study compared clinical efficiency of personalized implant abutments with standard implant abutments in multiple implant restorations. Clinical data of patients who were admitted in a private clinic between 2011 and 2022 and received dental implant treatments were collected. All complications and undesired events from the patients' medical record charts were statistically analyzed. The implants were loaded using either standard or customized abutments. For complete arch rehabilitations with the SKY Fast & Fixed protocol, standard titanium prosthetic abutments were used. Our results suggest that the abutments choice for patients has moved throughout the years more towards the use of customized abutments. The number of customized abutments (414) was higher compared with the number of standard abutments (293). In our database, the most used abutments for the anterior area implants were made of titanium and zirconia, whereas for the posterior area, the preferred abutments were mostly titanium. The standard abutments were used almost entirely for immediate loading and implantation in both anterior and posterior areas (Fast & Fixed protocol). Complications were encountered mainly in restorations with standard abutments (9.22%) compared to customized abutments (2.7%), with titanium abutments being the most reliable, having only 1.79% complications.
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.