Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39828672›Full record

ArticleBMC oral health2025

The influence of prosthetic treatments and implant-supported prostheses on posterior mandibular ridge atrophy: a retrospective cohort study.

Alwin Sokolowski, Sandra Huber, Behrouz Arefnia, Anke Pichler, Martin Lorenzoni, Armin Sokolowski

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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.

Alwin SokolowskiDivision of Restorative Dentistry, Periodontology and Prosthodontics, Department of Dental Medicine and Oral Health, Medical University of Graz, Billrothgasse 4, Graz, 8010, Austria.
Sandra HuberDivision of Restorative Dentistry, Periodontology and Prosthodontics, Department of Dental Medicine and Oral Health, Medical University of Graz, Billrothgasse 4, Graz, 8010, Austria.
Behrouz ArefniaDivision of Restorative Dentistry, Periodontology and Prosthodontics, Department of Dental Medicine and Oral Health, Medical University of Graz, Billrothgasse 4, Graz, 8010, Austria.
Anke PichlerDivision of Restorative Dentistry, Periodontology and Prosthodontics, Department of Dental Medicine and Oral Health, Medical University of Graz, Billrothgasse 4, Graz, 8010, Austria.
Martin LorenzoniDivision of Restorative Dentistry, Periodontology and Prosthodontics, Department of Dental Medicine and Oral Health, Medical University of Graz, Billrothgasse 4, Graz, 8010, Austria.
Armin SokolowskiDivision of Restorative Dentistry, Periodontology and Prosthodontics, Department of Dental Medicine and Oral Health, Medical University of Graz, Billrothgasse 4, Graz, 8010, Austria. armin.sokolowski@medunigraz.at.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsBone preservation is a requirement for long-term stability of dental prostheses, which is all the more important in the posterior mandible, given the particular challenges these areas pose to prosthetic treatment. The objective was to investigate the implications of different prostheses on the atrophy of posterior alveolar bone after tooth loss. MATERIALS AND

methodsA total of 457 treatment cases were retrieved from the medical documentation and information network. Baseline panoramic radiographs taken at prosthetic delivery and follow-up radiographs (≥ 3 years post-treatment) were available for analysis, with a mean follow-up duration of 6.42 ± 2.37 years. Posterior mandibular bone height in these radiographs was compared using one-way ANOVA followed by the Tukey post hoc test for statistical analysis.

resultsSites supporting fixed prostheses commonly used in partially edentulous mandibles exhibited less bone atrophy compared to sites with clasp- or telescope-retained removable partial dentures (RPDs) (p < 0.001). Furthermore, sites with clasp-retained RPDs and telescope-retained RPDs demonstrated less bone atrophy when distal support was present (p < 0.001). In edentulous mandibles, bar-retained overdentures supported by four implants exhibited significantly less bone atrophy compared to mucosa-supported complete dentures, bar-retained overdentures supported by two implants, or overdentures retained by Locator abutments on two implants (p < 0.001).

conclusionBone atrophy in the posterior mandible should be expected to vary greatly with prosthetic designs. Long-term stability is possible with fixed partial prostheses, RPDs are less favorable in the absence of a distal support and bar-retained overdentures on four or more implants exhibited the lowest bone atrophy in fully edentulous mandibles. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable - retrospective analysis.

Indexed as

Alveolar Bone LossDental Prosthesis, Implant-SupportedMandibleAdultAgedAtrophyDenture, Partial, FixedDenture, Partial, RemovableFemaleHumansJaw, Edentulous, PartiallyMaleMiddle AgedRadiography, PanoramicRetrospective StudiesAtrophyJaw, Edentulous, partiallyProsthetic implantsRemovable partial dentureTelescopes

Identifiers

PMID39828672
PMCPMC11743033

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.