ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2023
Conometric Connection for Implant-Supported Crowns: A Prospective Clinical Cohort Study.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 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.
- Finite element analysis of primary healing implants with different transmucosal designs.Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists · 2026Article
- Biconometric Connections in Dental Implants: A Pilot Mechanical Study.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTraditional screw or cemented connections in dental implants present limitations, prompting the exploration of alternative methods. This study assesses the clinical outcomes of single crowns and fixed partial prostheses supported by conometric connections after one year of follow-up.
methodsTwenty-two patients received 70 implants, supporting 33 rehabilitations. Biological responses and prosthodontic complications were evaluated at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months.
resultsAll implants exhibited successful osseointegration, with no losses or peri-implant inflammation. Marginal bone levels showed minimal changes, well below pathological thresholds. The difference in marginal bone loss (MBL) was -0.27 ± 0.79 mm between T0 and T1, and -0.51 ± 0.93 mm between T0 and T2. No abutment screw loosening or crown chipping occurred. However, coupling stability loss was observed in nine cases.
conclusionsThe conometric connection demonstrated successful integration and minimal complications after one year. This alternative shows promise, particularly in simplifying handling and improving marginal adaptation. Further research with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up is warranted for comprehensive validation.
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.