ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2026
Consensus Statement on Full-Arch Implant Rehabilitations: Evidence-Based Recommendations from the Italian Consensus Conference.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 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
29 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Full-arch implant-supported rehabilitations are widely recognized as an effective treatment option for edentulous patients. Nevertheless, clinical decision-making regarding patient selection, surgical planning, prosthetic material choice, and long-term maintenance protocols remains heterogeneous and requires structured evidence-based guidance. A modified Delphi consensus process was conducted involving 29 experts during the Italian Consensus Conference. A systematic literature review covering the period 2015-2024 was performed, and the certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. Consensus was predefined as ≥90% agreement. Seven evidence-based consensus statements were developed addressing: (1) periodontal risk assessment using validated tools; (2) guided bone regeneration outcomes with technique-specific indications; (3) comparative survival of four versus six implants in mandibular full-arch rehabilitations; (4) equivalence of tilted and axial implant configurations; (5) prosthetic material selection, with monolithic zirconia showing high survival; (6) risk-stratified supportive maintenance protocols associated with a reduction in peri-implantitis incidence; and (7) systemic risk stratification, including absolute and relative contraindications, medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) risk management, and perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis.
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.