ArticleClinical oral implants research2025
Dental Implants in Medically Compromised Patients Undergoing or After Receiving Anti-Resorptive or Radiotherapy: Retrospective Clinical and Radiographic Data.
Article in Clinical oral implants research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Effect of Medication Intake on Dental Implant-Related Outcomes-A Scoping Review.Clinical oral implants research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE AND
aimA retrospective study to evaluate the clinical and radiological outcomes of dental implants placed in compromised patients who have undergone antiresorptive therapy (AR) or head and neck radiotherapy (IR). MATERIAL AND
methodsDental implant placement was evaluated in compromised patients undergoing or after receiving AR/IR therapy following specific preventive measures: antibiotic prophylaxis (2 days before and 5 days after surgery) and primary wound closure with submerged healing for 4 months. The primary outcome was implant survival during the observation period. Secondary outcomes included marginal bone loss, occurrence of osteonecrosis, and factors influencing implant survival.
resultsA total of 92 patients (59 IR, 32 AR) with 369 dental implants were included in the study. During a mean follow-up period of 25 months (SD: 16), 23 implants were lost (IR: 21, AR: 2). Implant survival rates were 92% and 98% for IR and AR, respectively. Identified risk factors for implant failure included placement in neomandibular/-maxillary sites, maxillary implantation, implant diameter < 4.2 mm, active smoking, and diabetes mellitus. The mean marginal bone loss was 0.57 mm (SD: 1.51) in the IR group and -0.09 mm (SD: 1.17) in the AR group.
conclusionWith comprehensive risk assessment and careful evaluation of implant indications, dental implants can serve as an effective dental rehabilitation option for patients undergoing or after receiving AR/IR therapy, provided strict adherence to preventive measures is maintained. Implants placed following AR therapy demonstrate higher survival rates and reduced marginal bone loss compared to those placed after IR therapy.
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.