ReviewCureus2025
Analysis of Masseter Muscle Activity Following Treatment of Fully Edentulous Patients With Mono-arch and Bi-arch All-on-4 Prostheses: A Systematic Literature Review.
Review in Cureus, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the current modern era, edentulism of multifactorial origin remains a widespread condition with a rapidly increasing annual prevalence. This condition impairs various components of the stomatognathic system, particularly the masticatory muscles, with the masseter muscle being the most notably affected. However, ongoing innovations in surgical prosthodontics have made the All-on-4 (AO4) prosthetic concept a sustainable and minimally invasive option for the rehabilitation of fully edentulous patients, showing promising improvements in oral function. The objective of this systematic review was to analyze existing research on changes in masseter muscle activity in fully edentulous patients treated with mono- and bi-arch AO4 prostheses, assessed through electromyography (EMG), bite force, and occlusal contact analysis. The review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines, and the research question was formulated using the population, intervention, control, and outcomes (PICO) framework: "How is the activity of the masseter muscle affected in fully edentulous patients rehabilitated with mono- and bi-arch AO4 prostheses?" According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, articles were sourced from PubMed, Google Scholar, and ScienceDirect. All included studies were published within the past five years. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias 2 (RoB-2) tool. Out of 447 screened articles, only three met the inclusion criteria, comprising a total of 37 patients. Two studies focused on mono-arch and one on bi-arch AO4 prostheses. All three studies consistently demonstrated increased masseter muscle activity in both mono- and bi-arch AO4 groups compared to other prosthetic rehabilitation options, such as two-implant-supported overdentures and conventional dentures (CDs). However, bi-arch AO4 prostheses demonstrated superior masseter muscle neuromuscular activity compared to mono-arch AO4. Nevertheless, the type of prosthesis fixation (fixed or overdenture) and the material used (porcelain fused to metal or acrylic resin) may influence masseter muscle EMG analysis. Understanding these prosthetic influencing factors in mono- and bi-arch AO4 prostheses will help clinical practitioners rehabilitate fully edentulous patients more effectively.
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.