ArticleBMC oral health2024
A new classification for pterygomaxillary implants and its related surgical implications: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in BMC oral health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Minimally Invasive Implant Rehabilitation in Geriatric Patients: A Comprehensive Narrative Review of Contemporary Strategies to Avoid Extensive Bone Augmentation Procedures.Geriatrics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Prosthetic-Guided Pterygoid Anchorage for HUG® Subperiosteal Implants: A Technical Report.Cureus · 2026Article
- Managing Zygomatic Implant Failure With Pterygomaxillary Implant and Sinus Floor Elevation: A Technical Note.The Journal of craniofacial surgery · 2026Article
- A Segmentation-Assisted Three-Dimensional Planning Workflow for Static-Guided Pterygoid Implant Placement: A Proof-of-Concept Report.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo provide a novel classification for all implants in the maxillary retromolar region to simplify surgical design, reduce surgical risks, and guide clinicians in clinical decision-making.
methodsA total of 180 patients with bilateral partial or completely edentulous atrophic posterior maxillae who had received or were scheduled to receive pterygomaxillary implants were included in this study. Cone-beam computed tomography was performed, and the sagittal and coronal images were acquired at 110 kV and 10 mA. The exposure volume was 120 mm in diameter and 80 mm in height. The pterygomaxillary implants were divided into three different types based on the anatomical structures the implants passed through.
resultsThe average age of the 180 patients was 69 (range: 39-89) years; 99 were men and 81 were women. All the patients exhibited 360 pterygomaxillary implant sites. However, during mimic implantation, 14 implant sites were excluded due to severe resorption of the tuberosity, very small pterygoid plates, or variations in the descending palatal artery configuration. Of the 346 pterygomaxillary implant sites, 24.0% (83/346), 40.7% (141/346), 22.0% (76/346), and 13.3% (46/346) were classified as Types I, IIa, IIb, and III, respectively.
conclusionsType II pterygomaxillary implants were the most commonly used in the novel classification. Different types of pterygomaxillary implants should follow specific designs and surgical strategies to achieve optimal outcomes.
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.