ArticleCureus2025
Simulated Tissue Contouring Using an Ovate Pontic Design: A Detailed Case Report.
Article in Cureus, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This case study investigates the use of an ovate pontic design in simulated tissue contouring, a technique intended to produce the best possible functional and aesthetic results in dental prostheses. The edentulous ridge and normal gingival architecture must be preserved and maintained, as they frequently collapse after tooth extraction. In today's aesthetic dentistry, preserving interproximal tissue contour and preventing alveolar bone collapse are highly desirable. This case report presents a 25-year-old male patient with a missing anterior tooth due to trauma. The patient's missing anterior maxillary tooth caused both functional and aesthetic problems. The patient was presented with two options: an implant-supported prosthesis or a three-unit fixed partial denture (FPD). Due to economic constraints, the patient opted for a three-unit FPD. A clinical examination revealed that the adjacent teeth were intact and that the edentulous ridge was well-maintained. This necessitated a careful prosthetic approach to achieve harmonious integration with the surrounding soft tissues. A transfer impression technique was used to attain the desired result. A three-unit FPD was selected to restore the patient's edentulous area and provide an anatomical imitation of normal gingival architecture, incorporating an ovate pontic and porcelain-fused-to-metal crowns on both adjacent teeth. Because of its natural appearance and improved integration with the edentulous ridge, the ovate pontic design is preferable to other pontic designs, such as the modified ridge lap or the saddle pontic. Compared to bulkier or ill-fitting designs, its shape closely resembles the contour of a natural tooth, improving cleanliness and aesthetics by reducing plaque retention. The results demonstrated that dental aesthetics and functional occlusion could be successfully restored, and the patient was satisfied with the prosthesis's natural-looking appearance. This case highlights the crucial role of custom prosthetic methods in creating natural-looking dental restorations, particularly through ovate pontic design and simulated tissue contouring. It underscores the importance of combining patient-centered care with cutting-edge prosthodontic concepts such as digital technology, 3D printing, and artificial intelligence to optimize outcomes in dental practice. From an educational perspective, this paper provides valuable insights into how a three-unit FPD with an ovate pontic enhances the functional and aesthetic aspects of dental prostheses.
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.