Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42109422›Full record

ArticleBioinformation2026

Evaluate clinical outcomes of three single implants with non-splinted crowns and two implants supporting a three unit bridge.

Amit Gaurav, Rakhi Kumari, Ankur Joshi, Rahul Dami, Suruchi Singh, Sadaf Kazmi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bioinformation, 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

6 authors.

Amit GauravDepartment of Prosthodontics, Crown and Bridge Dentistry, Mithila Minority Dental College & Hospital, Darbhanga, India.
Rakhi KumariDepartment of Dentistry, Government Medical College and Hospital, Purnea, India.
Ankur JoshiDepartment of Dentistry, Government Medical College, Dehradun, India.
Rahul DamiDepartment of Prosthodontics, Crown and Bridge Dentistry, Seema Dental College and Hospital Rishikesh, India.
Suruchi SinghDepartment of Prosthodontics and Crown & Bridge, Buddha Institute of Dental Sciences and Hospital, Patna, India.
Sadaf KazmiDepartment of Prosthodontics and Crown & Bridge, Buddha Institute of Dental Sciences and Hospital, Patna, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is still a dearth of literature comparing the use of two or three implants in the rehabilitation of three-unit edentulous regions in the posterior jaw region. Therefore, it is of interest to evaluate the clinical outcomes and complications of three single implants with non-splinted crowns (NSC) and two implants supporting a three unit bridge (FDP) with an intervening pontic. Details of 478 patients who had NSC and 456 patients who had FDP were obtained once they fulfilled the standards for inclusion as well as standards of exclusion. Mesial and distal bone height, mobility of implant, peri implantitis (PI) and loss of implants were among the biological complications that were evaluated. The crestal bone loss was lesser in three implants with non-splinted crowns than two implants supporting a three unit bridge with an intervening pontic. The overall complications were also greater in two implants supporting a three unit bridge as compared to three implants with non-splinted crowns.

Indexed as

fixed dental prosthesisnon-splinted crownSingle implant

Identifiers

PMID42109422
PMCPMC13150201

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.