ArticleClinical oral implants research2026
Oral Fine Motor Control in Patients With Anterior Maxillary Single Implants, Freestanding Teeth and Teeth Connected in 3-Unit Bridges: An Experimental In Vivo Study.
Article in Clinical oral implants research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe oral fine motor control is compromised in patients with full-arch, bimaxillary bridges compared to those with natural teeth. No previous studies have examined the differences between the prosthetic treatments small anterior bridges and single anterior implants (SI). The aim of the study was to evaluate oral fine motor control in patients with single anterior tooth loss, comparing anterior teeth connected in 3-unit resin bonded bridges (RBB) and free-standing teeth adjacent to single implants (SI). MATERIALS AND
methodsA standardized hold-and-split task was performed in 16 patients on two occasions: once, with a RBB in place and once after replacement with a SI. The four conditions connected tooth (CT), pontic (P), free-standing tooth (T), and single implant (SI) were tested. Outcome variables hold force, variability of hold force, split force, and duration of split were analyzed using paired sample t-test or Wilcoxon signed rank test, with a significance level set at p < 0.05.
resultsThe results showed significant differences between T and SI for all variables (p < 0.05) except for duration of split (p > 0.05), and between CT and P regarding hold force and duration of split. No significant differences were found between CT and T or P and SI for any of the outcome variables (p > 0.05).
conclusionsOral fine motor control on a SI was compromised compared to a T and comparable to a P of a 3-unit RBB. However, splinting a tooth (CT) in a 3-unit anterior RBB does not seem to compromise the oral fine motor control.
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.