Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39396916›Full record

Trial reportClinical implant dentistry and related research2025

Maintenance Costs, Time, and Efforts Following Implant Therapy With Fixed Restorations Over an Observation Period of 10 Years: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.

Miha Pirc, Naida Gadzo, Marc Balmer, Nadja Naenni, Ronald E Jung, Daniel S Thoma

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Clinical implant dentistry and related research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Substance-Gain Extrusion Technique (SGET) in Combination With BOPT-Technique Description.Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2026
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. What if implant-based prosthodontics would have a standard screw head?International journal of implant dentistry · 2025
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Miha PircClinic of Reconstructive Dentistry, Center for Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0831-8905
Naida GadzoClinic of Reconstructive Dentistry, Center for Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Marc BalmerClinic of Reconstructive Dentistry, Center for Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Nadja NaenniClinic of Reconstructive Dentistry, Center for Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6689-2684
Ronald E JungClinic of Reconstructive Dentistry, Center for Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Daniel S ThomaClinic of Reconstructive Dentistry, Center for Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1764-7447

Funding

Clinic of Reconstructive Dentistry, Center for Dental Medicine
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo assess the costs and efforts of maintenance therapy following implant treatment with fixed restoration over an observation period of 10 years. MATERIAL AND

methodsThis randomized controlled clinical trial included 64 patients who were randomly assigned to receive one of two implant systems (AST or STM) and fixed restoration. Patients were included in a regular maintenance program and were examined at loading, 1, 3, 5, 8, and 10 years. Outcome measures included technical and biological complications, time, efforts, and costs to resolve them.

resultsA total of 97 implants were placed in 64 patients (AST: 54, STM: 43). Patient recall rates at 5 and 10 years were 89% and 67%. In general, technical complications were resolved within one to two appointments (mean = 1.5), and biological complications required a mean of 1.3 appointments. The overall regular maintenance time for the period of 10 years amounted to 77 min per year. Technical complications occurred in 39.5% of the patients, with screw-loosening being the most common one (43.4% of all complications). The most time-consuming technical complication was abutment fracture (94 min ± 68), followed by screw fracture (84 min ± 38). The prevalence of peri-implant mucositis on the patient level was 30.2%, and it was 9.3% for peri-implantitis. The average annual maintenance costs amounted to 9% of the initial cost of the implant treatment over the period of 10 years.

conclusionsAdditional regular maintenance costs and costs due to the treatment of potential complications have to be taken into consideration when placing dental implants. The majority of technical complications could be resolved within one appointment, whereas the time needed to treat biological complications varied between one and three appointments for peri-implantitis.

Indexed as

Dental ImplantsDental Prosthesis, Implant-SupportedAdultAgedDental Restoration FailureFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedTime FactorsDental Implantsbiological complicationsdental implantsmaintenance coststechnical complications

Identifiers

PMID39396916
PMCPMC11789827

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.