ArticleBMC oral health2025
Comparison of the success rate of bone level and tissue level implants placed in autogenous onlay bone block grafted ridges: 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. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe present study aims to compare the success rate of bone level implants and tissue level implants placed in previously reconstructed ridges using autogenous onlay bone block grafts.
methodsThis study included 53 patients presenting alveolar bone defects and treated with autogenous onlay bone block grafts. After 6 months of healing, implant placements were performed in augmented areas. 31 bone level implants and 48 tissue level implants were placed with the standard surgical protocol. Follow-up data (pain, mobility, exudation from peri-implant space, success rate, marginal bone loss) were retrospectively collected after five years of prosthetic loading.
resultsThe overall implant success rate at the 5-year examination was 95,8% for the tissue level implant group and 87% for bone level implant group. No tissue level implants were removed during the follow-up period however, there were four failed implants in the bone level group. Tissue level implants have a significantly higher success rate than bone level implants (p = 0.022). The average marginal bone loss was 1.37 ± 0.60 mm for tissue level implants and 1.59 ± 0.72 mm for bone level implants. No statistically significant differences for the peri-implant bone loss was found between groups (p = 0.263).
conclusionsTissue level implants present better long-term results in terms of success rate, as compared with bone level implants, when placed in reconstructed areas. No significant differences were found between the two types of implants as far as peri-implant bone maintenance is concerned.
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.