SynthesisClinical oral implants research2026
Patient- and Clinician-Reported Outcomes and Outcome Measures Evaluating Maxillary Full Arch Fixed Prostheses Supported by Different Numbers of Implants: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Clinical oral implants research, 2026. 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.
- Minimally Invasive Implant Rehabilitation in Geriatric Patients: A Comprehensive Narrative Review of Contemporary Strategies to Avoid Extensive Bone Augmentation Procedures.Geriatrics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Consensus Report of Group 1 of the 1st Global Consensus for Clinical Guidelines for the Rehabilitation of the Edentulous Maxilla: Number of Implants, Timing of Implant Placement and Loading.Clinical oral implants research · 2026Article
- 1st Global Consensus for Clinical Guidelines: Identifying a Core Outcome Set for Implant Dentistry in Edentulous Maxilla Rehabilitation.Clinical oral implants 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis systematic review aimed to evaluate both patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and clinician-reported outcomes (ClinROs) and their outcome measures (PROMs and CROMs), related to the number of implants used for an implant-supported full arch fixed dental prosthesis (IFADPs) in the edentulous maxilla. MATERIALS AND
methodsLiterature search was conducted in five electronic databases from January 2014 to June 2024. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective clinical studies reporting the number of implants, PROs, ClinROs, PROMs, and CROMs were included. Screening, data extraction, and reporting followed the PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess RCTs; ROBINS-I tool was used for non-RCTs.
resultsOut of 1466 articles, 31 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility; 11 were included. The studies reported PROs such as oral health-related quality of life, satisfaction, postoperative symptoms, and comfort. These were assessed using various tools, including Oral Health Impact Profile questionnaires and visual or verbal rating scales. ClinROs included surgical time, implant survival, insertion torque, complications, and marginal bone loss. These were measured through clinical examinations, radiographic assessments, and standard indices. RCTs showed low to high risk of bias, and prospective studies demonstrated a moderate-to-serious risk of bias.
conclusionsHigh implant and prosthesis survival rates, enhanced quality of life, mild postoperative symptoms, and increased patient satisfaction indicate favorable outcomes for IFADPs in the edentulous maxilla. However, evidence linking the PROs and ClinROs in relation to the number of implants used for IFADPs in the edentulous maxilla remains limited.
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.