ArticlePolymers2024
Biological Response of the Peri-Implant Mucosa to Different Definitive Implant Rehabilitation Materials.
Article in Polymers, 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.
- Emergence Profile Angle Matters-Restoring Peri-Implant Health by Adjusting Prosthetics-A Narrative Review.Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSealing the peri-implant tissue is a determining factor for long-term implant survival. In the transmucosal region, the cervical fraction of the prosthetic crown is in contact with these tissues, so mucointegration will also be influenced by the biomaterial used for the prosthetic restoration. This study aims to compare the tissue response generated by definitive restorative materials and polymeric materials from a histological point of view.
methodsThis study performed an observational prospective cohort study in which biopsies of the peri-implant mucosa were taken after placement of implant-supported prosthetic restorations made of different materials (zirconium oxide, lithium disilicate, and PMMA).
resultsA statistically significant difference was observed in the increase in the thickness of the non-keratinized epithelium when comparing the definitive materials (zirconium oxide/lithium disilicate) vs. the provisional material (PMMA) and in the number of collagen fibers when comparing zirconium oxide and lithium disilicate.
conclusionsThis study found that zirconia is the material that presents the most adequate biological response of peri-implant tissues. It shows a lower intensity of inflammatory cellular content, a total normality in the number of collagen fibers (the arrangement of the fibers is normal in 90% of the cases), and vascular proliferation of connective tissue in 83% of the cases. These parameters make it a material with a predictable response. Similarly, only the following slight statistically significant differences between the definitive and provisional materials are observed, indicating that the biological response generated by the provisional material (PMMA) is not very different from that obtained with the placement of the definitive restoration.
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.