ArticleClinical oral investigations2024
Clinical Longevity of Obturators in Patients with Jaw Defects: a Retrospective Cohort Study.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ultrafast Lasers for Surface Texturing: Transforming the Future of Dental Biomaterials.ACS applied bio materials · 2026Review
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe primary objective of the present retrospective clinical study was to determine the survival time of obturators while analyzing possible influencing factors. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective clinical cohort study analyzed the influence of various clinical factors on the survival probability of obturators and their follow-up outcomes using Kaplan‒Meier analysis.
resultsA total of 76 patients with 115 obturators were included in the study (47 men and 29 women, mean age 58.1 ± 18.1 years). The mean observation time was 3.0 ± 4.5 years (maximum 26.3 years). A total of 40.9% (47) of all obturators observed had to be replaced. The survival rate after 5 years was 79.5% for telescopic-crown-retained tooth-supported obturators, 86.9% for telescopic-crown-retained implant-supported obturators, 58.8% for removable full denture obturators, 22.1% for clasp-retained obturators and 0.0% for splints. The type of attachment, attendance at a regular follow-up and defect cause significantly influenced the survival of the obturators (p < .05).
conclusionsThe findings obtained in this study support the recommendation of using implant-supported obturators. Telescopic-crown attachments, either tooth- or implant-supported, seem to be favorable in terms of survival time. Attendance at a strict follow-up program seems to have a major influence on the longevity of the obturators. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The use of implant-supported obturators to cover permanent oral and maxillofacial defects is highly recommended. Additionally, the use of telescopic-crown attachments seems to be favorable in terms of survival time. Clasp-retained obturators and surgical splints should be used primarily for temporary restorations due to their shorter survival times.
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.