ArticleClinical oral implants research2025
Customized Bone Regeneration-A Retrospective Clinical Follow-Up Study of the Aesthetic Outcome.
Article in Clinical oral implants research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Resorbable scaffolds for alveolar ridge augmentation procedures: A systematic review.International journal of implant dentistry · 2026Pooled it
- The Effect of Collagen Membrane Fixation with Pins on Buccal Bone Regeneration in Immediate Dental Implant Sites: A Preclinical Study in Dogs.Journal of functional biomaterials · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to evaluate the long-term stability of soft tissue aesthetics as the primary outcome concerning bone levels (secondary outcome) following customized bone regeneration. Additionally, the influence of flap management techniques on aesthetic outcomes in customized bone augmentation was assessed. MATERIAL AND
methods21 patients (45 implants) who underwent reconstruction of three-dimensional bone defects using patient-specific titanium meshes at least 5 years prior were evaluated. The Pink Esthetic Score (PES) was used to assess aesthetic outcomes. Incision lines and flap designs were correlated with aesthetic parameters (primary outcome) and bone levels (secondary outcome). Radiographic measurements of bone levels were taken at implant placement and after more than 5 years. Changes over time in aesthetic outcomes were analyzed using Fisher's Exact Test, Mann-Whitney U-test, and Kruskal-Wallis Test.
resultsCrestal incisions without vertical releasing incisions showed significantly superior outcomes in aesthetics (primary outcome) and bone level mesially (p < 0.001) and distally (p = 0.001) compared to Poncho flaps or crestal incisions with vertical releasing incisions after > 5 years (secondary outcome). Across parameters, 52.6% to 69.2% of cases achieved a maximum aesthetic rating ("2"). The mean PES score was 11.09 (±3.70) across all implants. The implant survival rate was 100%.
conclusionsA crestal incision line without releasing incisions was superior in preserving bone levels and achieving favorable aesthetic outcomes. The findings highlight the importance of incision and flap design in the long-term outcomes of customized bone regeneration. The 100% implant survival rate and lack of side effects further underscore the reliability of this approach.
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.