ReviewCureus2026
Choosing Between Fixed and Removable Prosthetic Modalities for Completely Edentulous Patients: A Systematic Review of Evidence-Based Outcomes.
Review in Cureus, 2026. 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.
- Effect of Connection Geometry and Cantilever Length on the Mechanical Behavior of Ti6Al4V and PEEK Bar-Supported Implant Prostheses with Angled Abutments.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Effects of Kangfuxin on periodontal and masticatory outcome in periodontitis patients during implant supported rehabilitation.Frontiers in medicine · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Complete edentulism significantly impacts masticatory function, aesthetics, and quality of life. The selection between fixed and removable prosthetic modalities is a critical clinical decision. This systematic review aims to compare the clinical and patient-reported outcomes of fixed versus removable prosthetic rehabilitations for completely edentulous patients. A systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science databases was conducted up to December 2025. Studies were selected based on predefined PICOS criteria, including randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A narrative synthesis was performed due to significant heterogeneity. Ten studies were included. Fixed implant-supported prostheses demonstrated high long-term survival rates and superior masticatory efficiency and occlusal stability compared to removable options. Patient-reported outcomes, particularly oral health-related quality of life, were significantly better with any implant-supported prosthesis (fixed or removable) than with conventional complete dentures. Fixed prostheses (FPs) were associated with technical complications, while removable overdentures (ODs) presented challenges with occlusal wear. Conventional denture satisfaction was primarily linked to retention, comfort, and aesthetic quality. Implant-supported prostheses offer substantially better clinical and patient-reported outcomes than conventional dentures for completely edentulous patients. The choice between a fixed and removable modality involves a trade-off: FPs provide superior function and stability but require more complex maintenance, whereas removable ODs offer easier hygiene and a favorable balance of benefits. Treatment must be individualized based on anatomical factors, patient priorities, and clinical feasibility.
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.