ArticleEvidence-based dentistry2025
Similar short-term outcomes for bone-level implants with or without intermediate abutments.
Article in Evidence-based dentistry, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
designA single-center (university-setting), prospective, longitudinal, split-mouth, single-blind, randomized controlled clinical trial investigated peri-implant parameters of bone-level implants restored with either screw-retained prostheses connected directly to the implants or with intermediate abutments over a 3-year period. The study adhered to the ethical principles of the Helsinki Declaration and the CONSORT guidelines. Ethical approval was granted, and the trial was registered at Clinicaltrials.gov . CASE SELECTION: Participants included were over 18 years of age, had a plaque index below 25%, and were missing at least two adjacent teeth, allowing for rehabilitation with screw-retained fixed partial prostheses over two implants and 2-4 prosthetic units. Exclusion criteria included long-term use of medications affecting bone metabolism, smoking more than 10 cigarettes per day, history of local radiotherapy, untreated periodontitis, and the need for rehabilitation in the anterior sextant of the maxilla. The primary clinical outcome was marginal bone loss (MBL), while secondary outcomes included probing pocket depth (PPD), plaque index (PI), bleeding on probing (BOP), and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). STUDY TIMELINE: The study schedule included a screening (visit 1), implant surgery (visit 2), stage-two 8 weeks post-surgery (visit 3), impressions taken 4 weeks post stage-two (visit 4), baseline standardized radiograph (visit 5), followed by 6-month (visit 6), 12-month (visit 7), and 36-month (visit 8) follow-up visits. DATA ANALYSIS: Descriptive statistics and quantitative measures included means, standard deviations (SDs), minimum and maximum values, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Clinical parameters (six sites per implant) measured were MBL, PPD, PI, and BOP. Paired t tests were utilized for intragroup comparisons across different time points and intergroup comparisons at each time point. PROs at 36 months were compared using Student's t test. The alpha significance level was set at 0.05.
resultsThe study included 36 patients (72 implants), with two not completing the follow-up due to death and relocation. No implants showed signs of inflammation or mobility. Mean interproximal bone level (IBL) at baseline was 0.13 mm ± 0.15 mm for the control group and 0.10 ± 0.13 mm for the test group. At the 36-month follow-up, mean IBL was 0.13 ± 0.18 mm for the control group and 0.20 ± 0.24 mm for the test group, with no significant differences (F(1, 32) = 1.06; p > 0.05). Clinical parameters (PPD, BOP, PI) at 36 months showed no significant differences between groups. Minor complications occurred in 6.7% of the control group and 5.3% of the test group. PROs indicated no significant differences in general satisfaction, esthetics, comfort, phonetics, and masticatory function between the groups.
conclusionsAfter a 36-month follow-up, bone-level implants restored with CAD/CAM prostheses directly connected to the implants displayed similar clinical outcomes, PROs, and marginal bone level changes as those restored with intermediate standardized abutments.
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.