ArticleBMC oral health2025
Three-dimensional analysis of implant-supported fixed prosthesis in the edentulous maxilla: a retrospective study.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Methodologies for Assessing the Dimensional Accuracy of Computer-Guided Static Implant Surgery in Clinical Settings: A Scoping Review.Dentistry journal · 2026Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe maxillary incisal edge position is considered the starting point for full-mouth reconstructions. This retrospective study employed three-dimensional virtually planned patient data to evaluate the positional relationship between the upper incisor and underlying alveolar bone in implant-supported fixed prostheses of the edentulous maxilla and the associated influencing factors.
methodsThree-dimensional virtual models were constructed for 22 edentulous patients rehabilitated with implant-supported fixed prostheses using cone-beam computed tomography, facial and denture scan data. Height and prominence of the residual alveolar bone (vertical residual alveolar bone height [RHeight] and horizontal residual alveolar bone width [RWidth]), crown-to-bone profile angle (AIO, ACO), prosthetic height and width (ProsHeight and ProsWidth, respectively), and incisal position relative to the subspinale point (vertical incisal position [AHeight] and horizontal incisal position [AWidth]) were the parameters measured for the residual alveolar bone profile and the crown-to-bone positional relationship of the upper incisor. Correlation and exploratory multivariate regression analyses were used to identify the key determinants of upper incisor positioning relative to the alveolar bone.
resultsThe crown-to-bone profile angles used were AIO 65.73 ± 0.92° and ACO 60.47 ± 0.99°. Multivariate regression revealed that residual bone prominence was the dominant predictor of AWidth (B = 0.694, p = 0.003, adjusted R
conclusionHorizontal and vertical positioning of the upper incisal point was predominantly influenced by the residual ridge width, residual bone height, and upper lip length. Age primarily influences incisor positioning through its effect on residual alveolar bone prominence. Upper lip thickness and sex were found no significant effect on the position of the incisors relative to the alveolar bone.
trial registrationThe study was registered at Chinese Clinical Trial Registry. (Date:2024-05-11, No. ChiCTR2400084138).
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.