Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40721390›Full record

ArticleClinical implant dentistry and related research2025

Marginal Bone Level Changes in Full-Arch Rehabilitation: Digital Versus Analog Protocols-A 5-Year Retrospective Study.

Nicola De Angelis, Paolo Pesce, Vito Carlo Alberto Caponio, Giulia Santamaria, Oriana Spanu, Maria Menini

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical implant dentistry and related research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Nicola De AngelisDepartment of Surgical Sciences and Integrated Diagnostics, University of Genova, Genova, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8622-4328
Paolo PesceDepartment of Surgical Sciences and Integrated Diagnostics, University of Genova, Genova, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8726-4145
Vito Carlo Alberto CaponioDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5080-5921
Giulia SantamariaDepartment of Surgical Sciences and Integrated Diagnostics, University of Genova, Genova, Italy.
Oriana SpanuDepartment of Surgical Sciences and Integrated Diagnostics, University of Genova, Genova, Italy.
Maria MeniniDepartment of Surgical Sciences and Integrated Diagnostics, University of Genova, Genova, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6503-1201

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThis retrospective study compares the clinical outcomes of analog impressions versus intraoral scanning in full-arch immediate loading rehabilitations. Specifically, it evaluates peri-implant marginal bone level (MBL) changes at different time intervals (implant placement, loading, and at 2 and 5 years), as well as rates of mechanical and prosthetic complications. MATERIALS AND

methodsThe study included 62 patients who underwent full-arch rehabilitation with immediate implant placement between 2019 and 2020. Patients were divided into two groups: analog impression and digital intraoral scanning. All patients were rehabilitated with fixed titanium-PMMA screw retained restorations. Bone level was assessed through standardized intraoral radiographs at key time points. Additional parameters recorded included procedural time, prosthetic complications, and implant failures. Statistical analyses involved repeated measures ANOVA and post hoc Bonferroni tests.

resultsThe follow-up period was 5 years. Implant survival was 99.6%. No significant differences were found in prosthetic complications. MBL was slightly higher in the analog group at baseline (mean = 0.21, SD = 0.04 vs. digital mean = 0.17, SD = 0.04, t-test p-value < 0.001) than in the digital group. Despite this, the overall bone loss remained within clinically acceptable limits during the follow-up period. Digital impressions significantly reduced procedural time compared to analog methods.

conclusionsBoth impression techniques provided satisfactory clinical outcomes. Digital impressions demonstrated efficiency advantages but were associated with slightly greater bone loss over time. Analog impressions remain a reliable standard for full-arch immediate loading rehabilitations, though digital methods show promise for improved patient experience. Further randomized, long-term studies are needed. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Digital impressions offer a faster and more comfortable workflow for full-arch immediate loading rehabilitations, potentially improving patient compliance. However, their association with slightly greater bone loss warrants further investigation to optimize long-term stability.

Indexed as

Alveolar Bone LossDental Impression TechniqueImmediate Dental Implant LoadingAdultAgedDental Prosthesis, Implant-SupportedDental Restoration FailureFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective Studiesdental implantsfixedimmediate dental implant loadingimpression techniquesintraoral scannersmarginal bone lossprosthodontics

Identifiers

PMID40721390
PMCPMC12303858

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.