ArticleThe Journal of international medical research2026
Unconventional implant strategy for patients with limited interocclusal space in the posterior region: A clinical perspective cohort study with 1-year follow-up.
Article in The Journal of international medical research, 2026. 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.
- Unconventional implant strategy for patients with limited interocclusal space in the posterior region: A clinical perspective cohort study with 1-year follow-up.The Journal of international medical 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of a new implant restoration approach for patients with limited interocclusal space in the posterior region.Materials and methodsA total of 37 patients (19 females and 18 males) were enrolled in this study, receiving 62 implants. A locking taper implant (Bicon) was placed during the first-stage procedure, positioned >2 mm under the bone. An extraoral cementation technique was used to cement the crown and abutment. The survival and success rates of the implant restorations were evaluated based on plaque index, modified bleeding index, probing depth, marginal bone loss, and the patient's subjective satisfaction.ResultsThe success rate of the new implant restorations was 96.7% at the 1-year follow-up, with patients reporting satisfactory outcomes. Marginal bone loss and soft tissue changes were not significantly different at different depths of placement (
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.