ArticleMaedica2024
Management of Severe Atrophy with a Customised Subperiosteal Implant in the Posterior Mandible.
Article in Maedica, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Patient-Specific Subperiosteal Implants for Oral and Maxillofacial Rehabilitation: A Scoping Review Across Indications, from Established Full-Arch Use to Emerging Single-Tooth and Oncologic Applications.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Biomechanical comparison of titanium and Y-TZP subperiosteal implants in atrophic maxilla: a finite element study.BMC oral health · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clinical trials and follow-ups have provided ample documentation of the adaptability and predictability of endosseous implants (1). Patient general health state, bone availability and long osseointegration durations could have been limitations to the use of this implants. Subperiosteal implants with proper design can work effectively for many years and are a good substitute for endosseous implants, according to research findings (2). With the use of digital technology, clinicians can design the implant based on the patient's cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scan well in advance of surgery, addressing the drawbacks of analogue subperiosteal implants, which included the possibility of implant misfit due to impression material contraction and more significant trauma to the patient requiring two surgical interventions rather than one. This case study discusses the design characteristics of 3D printed superiosteal implants, the step-by-step procedure and their unique features based on recent research conducted in Romania with AB Dental International (3).
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.