ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2024
A Retrospective Evaluation of 5 Years of Clinical Results of Metal-Ceramic vs. Monolithic Zirconia Superstructures in Maxillary All-on-4
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of the current study was to present the clinical and radiological outcomes of monolithic zirconia superstructures compared to the metal-ceramic ones in the All-on-4 concept for the prosthetic rehabilitation of the maxillae. A total of 30 patients were subdivided into groups according to their superstructure type (metal-ceramic (n = 15) or monolithic zirconia (n = 15)). All implants were functionally loaded within 24 h after insertion with provisional acrylic superstructures. Prosthetic complications, marginal bone loss, plaque accumulation, probing pocket depth, bleeding on probing, and bite force were documented over a period of 5 years. Marginal bone loss around the implants of the ceramic group remained well over the five years (1.21 ± 0.23 mm). However, marginal bone loss was significantly lower around the implants in the monolithic zirconia group (0.22 ± 0.14 mm) (
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.