ArticleEvidence-based dentistry2025
Can monolithic zirconia frameworks in implant-supported cross-arch prostheses deliver reliable long-term outcomes?
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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
designA retrospective cohort study assessing the mid-to-long-term outcomes and risk factors affecting the prosthetic success and survival of implant-supported cross-arch fixed dental prostheses (IFCDPs) with monolithic zirconia frameworks. COHORT SELECTION: Forty-seven patients received a total of 51 cross-arch prostheses (27 maxillary and 24 mandibular prostheses), supported by 302 implants. Comprehensive clinical and radiographic records were available over a follow-up period ranging from 5 to 13 years. A strict inclusion criteria ensured the use of screw-retained implants and monolithic zirconia frameworks fabricated using standardised CAD/CAM protocols, without cemented titanium bases. Exclusion criteria included systemic conditions affecting healing, bruxism, uncontrolled periodontitis, smoking, and significant health changes during the follow-up period. DATA ANALYSIS: Descriptive statistics summarised implant and prosthesis outcomes, while complications were evaluated for peri-implantitis at an implant level and framework fractures at a prosthesis level. Peri-implantitis was identified through clinical signs, including bleeding on probing, suppuration, and radiographic evidence of bone loss. Prosthetic outcomes were classified using the modified USPHS criteria. Mixed-effects Cox regression models were applied to analyse risk factors. Hazard ratios were calculated for peri-implantitis and framework fractures, with statistical significance set at p < 0.05.
resultsThe implant survival rate was 97.64%, with peri-implantitis observed in 27 implants, predominantly in the mandible, resulting in an overall implant success rate of 91.06%. Prosthesis survival was 82.35%, with nine framework fractures reported, eight of which occurred in mandibular prostheses. The mandible was identified as a significant risk factor for both framework fractures (HR = 11.64, p = 0.024) and peri-implantitis (HR = 10.88, p = 0.003).
conclusionIFCDPs with monolithic zirconia-based frameworks exhibited favourable clinical outcomes over a 5-13-year period. However, mandibular prostheses were more prone to framework fractures and peri-implantitis, highlighting the need to consider mandibular flexure in prosthetic design to enhance long-term success and durability.
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.