ReviewBDJ open2024
A systematic review of patient-oriented outcomes following complete denture treatment: a comparison between the neutral zone technique and conventional approach.
Review in BDJ open, 2024. 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.
- Time-dependent adaptation and clinical efficacy of complete dentures: evidence from a Bayesian mixed-effects model.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- A Case Report of a Complete Removable Denture Designed to Restore Function in a Patient With Severe Resorption of the Mandibular Alveolar Ridge Using the Neutral Zone and Flange Techniques.Case reports in dentistry · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo determine the patient-oriented outcomes after complete denture (CD) treatment using neutral zone (NZ) techniques compared with those of conventional dentures. MATERIALS AND
methodsElectronic and hand searches were conducted up to December 2023 based on PICOS criteria. Population (P) was patients with complete edentulism on maxillary and mandibular arches and were either or not wearing CDs. Intervention (I) focused on the fabrication of mandibular and/or maxillary CD using NZ techniques. Comparators (C) included other CD fabrication approaches, such as conventional and simplified techniques, and the use of old or existing CDs. Outcomes (O) were patient-oriented treatment outcomes. Study design (S) included human studies.
resultsEleven human experimental studies were included. NZ dentures demonstrated better patient-reported outcomes, by providing greater comfort, enhancing denture stability and retention, reducing food traps underneath the denture, as well as improving appearance, chewing efficiency and speech. Objective findings varied, with most studies showing equivalent outcomes for NZ and conventional dentures. However, one study indicated superior, and another demonstrated worse outcomes for NZ dentures.
conclusionsNZ dentures generally improve patient-reported outcomes more than conventional dentures. However, their impact on objective outcomes compared with a conventional denture remains uncertain.
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.