ArticleActa odontologica Scandinavica2026
Analysis of prosthetic outcomes and influencing factors in patients with alveolar bone atrophy.
Article in Acta odontologica Scandinavica, 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
objectiveTo investigate implant-supported prosthetic outcomes and influencing factors in alveolar bone atrophy. MATERIAL AND
methodsOne hundred and fifty patients with atrophy receiving implants (2021-2022) were followed for 2 years. Success (n = 97, 64.7%) and failure (n = 53, 35.3%) groups were compared using univariate analysis, followed by multivariate logistic regression to identify factors associated with overall failure and Cox regression to assess time to failure.
resultsUnivariate analysis identified age, gender, smoking, implant length, and prosthesis type as significant (p < 0.05). Multivariate logistic regression showed short implant length (< 10 mm) as the sole independent risk factor for failure (OR = 4.418, p = 0.004); age ≥ 60 years (OR = 2.560, p = 0.094) and female gender (OR = 1.127, p = 0.807) were not significant. Multivariable Cox regression revealed age ≥ 60 years as a significant predictor of earlier failure (HR = 2.558, p = 0.010), while female gender and short implants were not (p > 0.05). Kaplan-Meier curves showed significant survival differences for age (p = 0.010), gender (p = 0.023), and implant length (p = 0.021).
conclusionShort implant independently increases failure risk; age ≥ 60 years accelerates failure. Bone augmentation is preferred. Findings need validation.
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.