ArticleEuropean journal of dentistry2024
Five- and 18-Year Outcome of Two Cases with Full-Arch Rehabilitations Ad modum All-on-4 in the Presence of Challenging Conditions.
Article in European journal of 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.
- Medium-term clinical outcomes of the all-on-4 system in different bone types: a retrospective analysis.BMC oral health · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Placing implants in fresh postextraction sites is a borderline rehabilitation procedure. The purpose of this report is to describe the pre-, per-, and postoperative procedures for maintaining long-term stability of two full-arch rehabilitations through the All-on-4 protocol, performed in the presence of challenging conditions. Two patients were referred for full-arch rehabilitation with immediate function, with both patients presenting infection in the jaws: patient 1 with an implant (position #45) inserted in a cystic cavity; patient 2 with one implant (position #24) inserted transsinus after the removal of a cyst on the base of the maxillary sinus and another implant (position #15) inserted with a dehiscence. Both patients received a preoperative dental hygiene appointment, a regenerative surgical protocol, and were enrolled in a postoperative maintenance protocol. After surgery a provisional prosthesis was provided ensuring immediate function, and 6 months after surgery, the final prosthesis was delivered. During the follow-up appointments (final follow-up at 5 and 18 years), the implants were stable, and no infection was observed for both patients. The present case report describes two full-arch rehabilitations in immediate function, supported by dental implants inserted in the presence of challenging conditions that do not represent the norm, rather are highly demanding for the clinical team, warranting caution in the interpretation of the results.
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.