Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38275459›Full record

ReviewBiomimetics (Basel, Switzerland)2024

Customized Subperiosteal Implants for the Rehabilitation of Atrophic Jaws: A Consensus Report and Literature Review.

Javier Herce-López, Mariano Del Canto Pingarrón, Álvaro Tofé-Povedano, Laura García-Arana, Marc Espino-Segura-Illa, Ramón Sieira-Gil, Carlos Rodado-Alonso, Alba Sánchez-Torres, Rui Figueiredo

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
16.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

9 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Javier Herce-LópezOral and Maxillofacial Surgeon, Virgen Macarena University Hospital, 41009 Seville, Spain.
Mariano Del Canto PingarrónPrivate Practice Clínica del Canto, 28290 Madrid, Spain.
Álvaro Tofé-PovedanoOral and Maxillofacial Surgeon, Puerta del Mar University Hospital, 11009 Cádiz, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-1159-6025
Laura García-AranaOral and Maxillofacial Surgeon, San Francisco de Asís University Hospital, 28002 Madrid, Spain.
Marc Espino-Segura-IllaOral and Maxillofacial Surgeon, Bellvitge University Hospital, 08907 Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-3670-876X
Ramón Sieira-GilOral and Maxillofacial Consultant, Hospital Clínic, Universitat de Barcelona, 08036 Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-6522-5679
Carlos Rodado-AlonsoOral and Maxillofacial Surgeon, Private Practice Cimax, 17002 Girona, Spain.
Alba Sánchez-TorresProfessors of Oral Surgery, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Researchers at the IDIBELL Institute, University of Barcelona (Spain), 08907 Barcelona, Spain.
Rui FigueiredoProfessors of Oral Surgery, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Researchers at the IDIBELL Institute, University of Barcelona (Spain), 08907 Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-2122-6530
Institut d'Investigació Biomédica de Bellvitge · ESBellvitge University Hospital · ESClínica Rementería · ESHospital Universitario Puerta del Mar · ESHospital Universitario Virgen Macarena · ESUniversitat de Barcelona · ES

Funding

Avinent SL CATEDRA UB-AVINENT
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

(1) Background: The aim was to perform a literature review on customized subperiosteal implants (CSIs) and provide clinical guidelines based on the results of an expert consensus meeting held in 2023. (2) Methods: A literature search was performed in Pubmed (MEDLINE) in July 2023, including case series and cohort studies with a minimum follow-up of 6 months that analyzed totally or partially edentulous patients treated with CSIs. Previously, an expert consensus meeting had been held in May 2023 to establish the most relevant clinical guidelines. (3) Results: Six papers (four case series and two retrospective cohort studies) were finally included in the review. Biological and mechanical complication rates ranged from 5.7% to 43.8% and from 6.3% to 20%, respectively. Thorough digital planning to ensure the passive fit of the CSI is mandatory to avoid implant failure. (4) Conclusions: CSIs are a promising treatment option for rehabilitating edentulous patients with atrophic jaws; they seem to have an excellent short-term survival rate, a low incidence of major complications, and less morbidity in comparison with complex bone grafting procedures. As the available data on the use of CSIs are very scarce, it is not possible to establish clinical recommendations based on scientific evidence.

Indexed as

customized subperiosteal implantsdental implantsedentulous jaw

Identifiers

PMID38275459
PMCPMC10812919
OpenAlexW4391098367

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.