ArticleBMC oral health2026
Clinical outcomes of a Locator-bilateral segmental bar concept versus a conventional rigid bar concept for maxillary implant-supported overdentures: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in BMC oral health, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis retrospective cohort study evaluated a Locator-bilateral segmental bar concept (LBSB) for maxillary implant-supported overdentures and compared it with a conventional rigid bar concept (CRB) in terms of implant survival, peri-implant conditions, marginal bone loss (MBL), complications, and numeric rating scale (NRS)-based satisfaction.
methodsConsecutive patients treated between January 2013 and December 2025 were reviewed. Eligible patients had been treated using either the LBSB or CRB concept. Outcomes included implant survival, MBL, modified sulcus bleeding index (mSBI), modified plaque index (mPI), time-to-first complication, NRS-based overall patient satisfaction (primary outcome), and seven domain-specific satisfaction items. Between-group associations were assessed using regression models adjusted for follow-up duration; complications were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier methods and Firth-penalized Cox models.
resultsNineteen patients were included (LBSB, n = 10; CRB, n = 9), with mean follow-up durations of 5.10 ± 3.07 and 5.67 ± 3.54 years, respectively. Implant and prosthesis survival were 100% in both groups. In adjusted analyses, the LBSB group showed lower MBL than the CRB group (adjusted mean difference, - 0.310 mm; p = 0.007), whereas mSBI and mPI did not differ significantly. Kaplan-Meier curves for any complication were comparable between groups (log-rank p = 0.860), while the LBSB group showed a lower estimated hazard of relining (HR, 0.056; Holm-adjusted p = 0.019). Overall satisfaction scores appeared higher in the LBSB group, with an adjusted mean difference of 0.983 (p = 0.031).
conclusionsWithin the limitations of this small non-randomized retrospective cohort, the LBSB concept was associated with lower MBL, an estimated lower hazard of relining, and higher NRS-based satisfaction compared with the CRB concept. These findings should be interpreted as exploratory, hypothesis-generating concept-level associations, rather than as evidence of clinical superiority or causal effects of any individual design component. Confirmation in adequately powered prospective studies is warranted.
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.