ArticleCureus2024
Marginal Bone Loss Around the Implant: A Retrospective Analysis of Bone Remodeling Over Five Years of Follow-Up.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cost-effectiveness of short implants (6-8.5 mm) compared to regular length implants (> 10 mm) with bone regeneration in posterior atrophic mandible: a 8-year microsimulation model.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Effects of Different Patient and Prosthetic Variables on Marginal Bone Behavior in Dental Implants: A Clinical Retrospective Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionBone remodeling around implants in implant-supported rehabilitation is a continuous debate with no consensus in the literature. This study aimed to investigate the implant- and patient-specific factors contributing to marginal bone loss near the implant. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe included patients who had implant-supported prosthetic rehabilitation using one implant system, between 2014 and 2018, who had full follow-up documentation and orthopantomography over five years, and who had no unwell-controlled systemic pathologies that may influence bone metabolism.
resultsEighty-one patients who received 500 implants met the inclusion criteria. We observed approximately 1 mm of bone resorption at the five-year follow-up, with the first 0.78 mm of them being documented at the three-year follow-up. Adults younger than 60 years old had an increase in bone resorption by approximately 30%. No difference was seen between men and women. However, a slight increase in bone resorption at five years was seen in female patients older than 50 years old than in ones younger than 50 years (by 30%). The narrowest diameter (3.5 mm; p = 0.001) and anterior mandible (p = 0.008) had the highest bone resorptions. Contrarily, with an insertion depth of approximately 1 mm (p = 0.004), the splinted implant prosthesis (p = 0.21) and zirconia material of the prosthesis (p = 0.57) had the lowest bone remodeling. Moreover, patients younger than 60 years and female patients above 50 years had an increased bone resorption.
conclusionsBone remodeling is a multifactorial process. The treatment planning has to take into consideration both implant- and patient-specific factors.
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.