ArticleJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences2024
Evaluating the Impact of Prosthetic Material Choices on the Clinical Outcomes of Implant-Supported Restorations.
Article in Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: By resolving the difficulties associated with missing teeth, implant-supported restorations have emerged as a key component of contemporary dentistry. The choice of prosthetic materials is crucial in establishing the durability and clinical efficacy of these restorations. Methods: A prospective design was used at a tertiary care hospital with 150 patients receiving implant-supported restorations. Depending on which of the three prosthetic materials were utilized for their prosthesis-ceramic, metal, or polymer-the patients were randomized into one of three groups. Clinical assessments were carried out at baseline and at regular intervals for a minimum follow-up period of [insert time]. These evaluations included implant stability, peri-implant health, restorative integrity, patient satisfaction, and maintenance needs. Results: When compared to metal and polymer alternatives, ceramic restorations showed superior implant stability (75.2 ± 3.6 N cm), peri-implant health (1.8 ± 0.4), and restoration integrity (92%). Ceramic restorations had the greatest patient satisfaction ratings (8.5 ± 1.2), but there was no statistically significant difference between the material groups. Restorations made of polymers showed the greatest maintenance requirements (2.0 ± 0.9). Conclusion: The choice of prosthetic material has a major impact on how well implant-supported restorations function clinically. Ceramic restorations performed better in terms of restoration quality, peri-implant health, and implant stability, demonstrating their appropriateness for producing positive long-term 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.