ReviewOral and maxillofacial surgery2025
Rehabilitation of edentulous jaws using the "All-on-Four" treatment concept: an overview of systematic reviews.
Review in Oral and maxillofacial surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biomechanical effects of different carbon fiber-reinforced polyetheretherketone dental implants materials in edentulous maxilla: A 3D finite element study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Management and clinical analysis of complications following all-on-4 implant-supported rehabilitation in a patient with severe maxillary bone deficiency and periodontitis: a case report.BMC oral health · 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
Abstract
purposeThis overview aimed to answer the following research question: What is the current knowledge regarding the performance of the "All-on-Four" technique compared to other full-arch implant rehabilitation methods based on evidence from systematic reviews?
methodsThis overview assessed the performance of the "All-on-Four" concept versus other implant-supported full-arch rehabilitation techniques. Outcomes included implant number, loading protocol, marginal bone loss (MBL), and cumulative survival rate (CSR). The protocol was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023471446). A comprehensive search was performed across ten databases, including grey literature. Methodological quality was assessed using AMSTAR-2, and risk of bias was evaluated with ROBIS. Two reviewers independently conducted all steps, with a narrative synthesis of results.
resultsA total of 4,468 records were identified, and eight systematic reviews published between 2013 and 2021 were included. For the "All-on-Four" technique, CSR ranged from 94.8% to 99.3%, and mean MBL ranged from 1.1 mm to 1.5 mm. None of the reviews reported statistically significant differences suggesting the "All-on-Four" protocol is inferior to approaches with more implants. However, most reviews showed a high risk of bias and low methodological quality.
conclusions"All-on-Four" technique demonstrates clinical outcomes comparable to conventional full-arch rehabilitations, but evidence is limited by methodological weaknesses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41372686What 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.