Chewing efficiency and patient-centered outcomes in maxillary rehabilitation with zygomatic vs. conventional implant-supported fixed restorations.

Lijuan Ye, Jie Li, Yuwei Dai, Xiaowan Ling, Lijun Yan, Feng Wang, Yiqun Wu

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oral health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Lijuan Ye *Department of Second Dental Center, Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, College of Stomatology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.

Jie Li *Department of Second Dental Center, Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, College of Stomatology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.

Yuwei DaiDepartment of Second Dental Center, Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, College of Stomatology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.

Xiaowan LingDepartment of Second Dental Center, Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, College of Stomatology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.

Lijun YanDepartment of Second Dental Center, Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, College of Stomatology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.

Feng WangDepartment of Second Dental Center, Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, College of Stomatology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.

Yiqun WuDepartment of Second Dental Center, Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, College of Stomatology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to assess whether zygomatic implant-supported fixed restorations (ZIFRs) provide comparable chewing efficiency and patient-centered outcomes to conventional implant-supported fixed restorations (CIFRs) in edentulous maxilla cases. Material and methods: A total of 29 patients were enrolled in this study. These patients with maxillary edentulism received ZIFR (16) or CIFR (13) treatment between October 2018 and April 2022. Chewing efficiency was evaluated by the subjective assessments of the scales of chewed gums and the variance of the Hue in a two-color chewing gum mixing ability test. In addition, the Oral Health Impact Profile-14 (OHIP-14) was employed to compare the oral health-related quality of life of patients between these two groups. Results: There were no significant differences in chewing efficiency between the ZIFR and CIFR groups according to the results of the subjective assessments ( Conclusions: With the limitations of the study, the chewing efficiency of ZIFRs was comparable to CIFRs in the rehabilitation of maxillary edentulism. However, under such conditions, ZIFRs can offer better postoperative quality of life compared to CIFRs.

Indexed as

chewing efficiencyconventional implantsedentulous maxillaoral health-related quality of lifezygomatic implants

Identifiers

PMID41725919

DOI10.3389/froh.2026.1691698

PMCPMC12920519

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY

Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.