Trial reportClinical implant dentistry and related research2026
Outcomes of One-Piece and Two-Piece Dental Implants After 15-17 Years: Follow-Up of a Randomized Clinical Trial.
Trial report in Clinical implant dentistry and related 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the biological, technical, and esthetic outcomes of one-piece and two-piece dental implant systems after 15-17 years in the follow-up of a previously conducted randomized clinical trial. MATERIAL AND
methodsThis study represents the 15-17-year follow-up of a previously conducted randomized clinical trial included 60 patients requiring dental implant therapy. They were randomly assigned to receive either a one-piece (STM) or two-piece (BRA) implant system. Final restoration delivery served as baseline, after which all patients entered a structured maintenance program. Clinical re-evaluations were performed at 1, 5, 10, 12, 15, and 17 years. Biological, technical, radiographic, and esthetic parameters were assessed at each follow-up visit using standardized clinical and radiographic protocols.
resultsThirty-nine patients with 95 implants, all of whom had completed a 15- or 17-year follow-up visit, were included in the final analysis (STM: 22 patients/45 implants; BRA: 17 patients/50 implants), with a mean follow-up of 16.4 ± 1.1 years. The cumulative implant survival rate was 95.0% (STM: 91.8%; BRA: 98.0%). Marginal bone levels at 15-17 years were 0.08 ± 1.15 mm (STM) and 1.53 ± 0.81 mm (BRA). Clinical parameters remained stable in both groups, although BOP was higher in the STM group. Peri-implant mucositis was observed in 49.7% of all implants and peri-implantitis in 13.3%, with higher rates in the STM group. Technical complications occurred in 28 implants (STM: 23; BRA: 5), with the STM group showing a higher complication rate (implant level: 35.4% vs. 5.8%). Esthetic observations included visible crown margins in 62 implants and mucosal shimmering in 54 implants, with no implant fractures reported.
conclusionsBoth implant systems demonstrated favorable long-term outcomes with high survival rates. While the one-piece system showed superior marginal bone preservation, it was associated with a higher rate of technical complications.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: KEK-ZH-Nr 2014-0201.
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.