ArticleCureus2025
Clinical and Radiographic Assessment of Milled Versus 3D-Printed Patient-Specific Subperiosteal Implants for Atrophic Mandibular Ridges: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
Article in Cureus, 2025. 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.
- 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
- Quality of Life Following Dental Rehabilitation with Customized Subperiosteal Implants: A Pilot Cohort Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Treatment of Severe Atrophy with Juxta-Osseous Implants: A Systematic Review and Case Report.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
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
objectiveThis study evaluated the clinical and radiographic outcomes of patient-specific subperiosteal implants fabricated via milling or 3D printing for mandibular rehabilitation in patients with severely atrophic mandibles. METHODOLOGY: Twenty patients with severely atrophic edentulous mandibular ridges were randomly assigned to receive subperiosteal implants manufactured by Computer-Aided Design/Computer-Aided Manufacturing (CAD/CAM) milling or 3D printing. Preoperative cone beam computed tomography scans and digital planning generated customized stereolithography (STL) files that guided the fabrication of implants from titanium grade 4 using either subtractive (milling) or additive (3D printing) techniques. After creating a full-thickness mucoperiosteal flap, the custom-made implants were seated and secured with mini-screws, and patients received written postoperative care instructions and medications. Primary outcomes included implant survival, bone resorption, and placement accuracy assessed by measuring mesiodistal and buccolingual angular deviations. Secondary outcomes comprised the duration of the intervention and soft tissue dehiscence evaluated at multiple postoperative intervals up to 12 months. Data were analyzed using the chi-square test for categorical data and the t-test for continuous data.
resultsThere were no statistically significant differences between the two groups regarding implant survival, with one implant failing in the milling group (
conclusionsBoth milling and 3D printing techniques offer effective and comparable solutions for fabricating patient-specific subperiosteal implants to rehabilitate atrophic mandibles. Available resources and clinician expertise should inform the choice between these methods.
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.