ArticleFrontiers in dentistry2024
Severe Maxillectomy Defect Rehabilitation with an Implant-Retained Obturator Prosthesis: A Case Report.
Article in Frontiers in dentistry, 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Conventional obturator prostheses might cause dissatisfaction in patients with hard or soft palate defects due to inadequate retention and function during speech, mastication, and swallowing. Thus, surgical reconstruction and implant-supported obturators are considered as alternative treatments for these patients. This case-report study describes the prosthetic reconstruction of an 88-year-old patient suffering from a hard palate defect after surgical resection of verrucous carcinoma in the left side of the hard palate. Fifteen months after radiotherapy, two implants were placed in the right side of the remaining ridge, in the second and third molar region. After the implant healing period, the implant-supported obturator prosthesis was fabricated. The patient was satisfied with the esthetics and function of the obturator at the 12-month recall visit and radiographs showed normal healing and no bone loss around the implants.
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.