ArticleJournal of maxillofacial and oral surgery2025
Influence of Axial and Angled Implants on Marginal Bone Loss in All-on-Four Implant-Supported Rehabilitation: A Retrospective Cohort Study.
Article in Journal of maxillofacial and oral surgery, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare marginal bone loss levels between axially and angled installed implants in maxillary rehabilitation utilizing the All-on-Four concept, while also examining the impact of terminal cantilever size on implant/prosthesis set survival. Materials and Methods: This retrospective cohort study involved 11 patients (44 implants) who received implant-supported prostheses with immediate loading. Radiographic evaluations were conducted on the day of prosthesis delivery, including panoramic and periapical radiographs, establishing the baseline (T0). Follow-up periapical radiographs were taken at 6 months (T1), 1 year (T2), and 2 years (T3) post-prosthesis delivery. Panoramic radiographs were used to determine implant angulation and the size of terminal cantilevers. Marginal bone loss on the mesial and distal aspects of each implant was assessed across study periods. Results: Statistical analysis revealed no significant difference in marginal bone loss between axially and inclined implants. Terminal cantilever lengths ranged from 6.11 to 17.15 mm, with a decrease observed in cases with implants tilted up to 30°. However, no significant difference in cantilever lengths was found between the two groups (group 1: tilts 0°-30°, group 2: tilts above 30°). The survival rate of the implant/prosthesis sets was 100%. Conclusion: In conclusion, there were no statistically significant differences in marginal bone loss between axial and inclined implants. Implant inclination allowed for prostheses with smaller terminal cantilevers, contributing to a balanced distribution of stresses on the implant/prosthesis set. Further randomized clinical trial should be conducted to confirm the presented findings.
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.