ArticleInternational journal of implant dentistry2025
Electroplated double-crowns on implants and teeth after up to 12 years- a retrospective clinical study.
Article in International journal of implant dentistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Clinical performance of a conometric retention system for single implant restorations: 1-year analysis of a prospective multicenter study.International journal of implant dentistry · 2026Article
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
purposeTo retrospectively evaluate the outcome of implant-supported or combined tooth-implant-supported prostheses retained by electroplated double-crowns after 1-12 years.
methodsTwenty-five patients were retrospectively examined in a private dental practice in Hamburg, Germany. All had been rehabilitated with a removable prosthesis retained by electroplated double-crowns, for at least one year. Fifteen patients had implant-supported prostheses and 10 had combined tooth-implant-supported prostheses in the maxilla or the mandible. Biological and technical complications were recorded at the clinical examination and extracted from the patient records. Kaplan-Meier implant and tooth survival rates were calculated. Potential risk factors for severe complications were identified. Oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) was measured by a short version of the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) questionnaire. Patients reported subjective chewing function using a visual analogue scale.
resultsKaplan-Meier survival rates were 100% for natural abutments and 90.9% for implants after 11.8 years (p = 0.54). Two implants in two patients were lost at 8 and 9 years due to peri-implantitis in the "solely implant" group. The most common complications were decementation of primary crowns and wear of the prosthetic teeth. The mean OHIP score for the group "tooth-implant-supported" was 5.2 ± 5.0, whereas the mean score for the "solely implant" group was 1.7 ± 2.9 (p = 0.039). Patients rated their subjective masticatory function very high with an average score of 9.4 ± 0.8 out of a possible 10.
conclusionsImplant-supported or combined tooth-implant-supported prostheses retained by electroplated double-crowns are a viable method of treatment with a satisfactory outcome. Maintenance has been manageable and patients have reported very good subjective chewing function after several years of function.
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.