ArticleScientific reports2025
Influence of the design of modern subperiosteal multivectorial anchored Implants on success and survival in complex patient cases.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patient-Specific Subperiosteal Implants for Oral and Maxillofacial Rehabilitation: A Scoping Review Across Indications, from Established Full-Arch Use to Emerging Single-Tooth and Oncologic Applications.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Maintenance of Custom-Made Subperiosteal Implants: A Narrative Review of Indirect Evidence and Preliminary Clinical Considerations.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Quality of Life Following Dental Rehabilitation with Customized Subperiosteal Implants: A Pilot Cohort Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 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
This study investigates factors relating to the success and survival of patient-specific subperiosteally multivectorial anchored implants (IPS-Implant) with a minimum of two coupling elements (CE) to anchor the prosthetic restoration in challenging patient situations. Construction parameters of the implants were analyzed. Implantation timepoint, complications, and complication severity using USPHS criteria (A-D) were obtained from patients records. CE-location, spacing, length and transmucosal height were evaluated for their influence. The medial plaque (mPI) and the gingival (GI) indices were evaluated in order to assess inflammations around the CE. Success and survival rates were analyzed via Kaplan-Meier analysis and log-rank tests. In fifteen patients (6 men, 9 women) aged 40 to 92 in total 49 CE were examined. Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed a 2-year success rate of 91.6% and survival rate of 97.5%, while long-term analysis showed a success rate of 53.9% and survival rate of 89.4% after 8.9 years in total. Only 3 CE got lost due to fracture of the supporting bone. 46 CE are still in clinical use. After 1.8 years in the earliest, in 18 cases, signs for inflammation were detected. 10 of these inflammations required medical care. Subperiosteal implants show good short-term results but often face soft-tissue complications over time. Neighboring natural teeth and distances between coupling elements < 10 mm increased the risk for complications. Implant design, surface finish, and prosthetic protection are crucial for long-term success, requiring further research.
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.