ArticleAmerican journal of translational research2024
Efficacy of digital guide-assisted implant restoration in anterior teeth aesthetics and its impact on labial bone mass.
Article in American journal of translational research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo analyze the efficacy of digital guide-assisted implant restoration technique in enhancing the anterior teeth aesthetics and its impact on labial bone mass.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed clinical data from 90 patients who underwent maxillary anterior teeth implant restoration at The First People's Hospital of Fuyang, Hangzhou, from January 2021 to September 2023. The patients were divided into two groups: a conventional group (n=45, 45 implants, standard implant restoration) and a digital group (n=45, 45 implants, digital guide-assisted implant). We compared implant positional deviations, changes in dental plaque index (PLI), aesthetic effect scores, labial bone mass differences, and the occurrence of adverse reactions post-treatment between the two groups.
resultsThe digital group exhibited significantly less deviation in root position in the buccolingual and vertical directions, less neck deviation in the buccolingual and vertical directions, and less apical deviation than the conventional group (P=0.021, P=0.005, P=0.016, P=0.008, P=0.026, respectively). Three months postoperatively, the digital group demonstrated a significantly lower mean PLI (P<0.001), higher white and pink aesthetic scores (P=0.021, P=0.005), and increased alveolar ridge height and coronal and middle labial bone mass (P=0.006, P=0.015, P=0.008). Additionally, this group experienced lower incidence of adverse reactions (4.44% vs. 17.78%) compared with the conventional group (P=0.044).
conclusionThe digital guide-assisted implant restoration significantly enhances implant accuracy, reduces bone resorption, improves aesthetic outcomes, and ensures higher safety.
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.