ArticleJournal of functional biomaterials2026
Implants in Adolescents: Clinical Outcomes After Growth-Pattern-Adapted Implant Placement.
Article in Journal of functional biomaterials, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
(1) Background: Dental implants in adolescents remain controversial. This retrospective study aimed to evaluate the esthetic outcome of implants placed during adolescence using a growth-pattern-adapted concept, with implant survival, peri-implant health, and patient satisfaction as secondary outcomes. (2) Materials and methods: Primary implant survival was retrospectively evaluated based on treatment records in 305 patients (612 implants) affected by tooth loss or congenital tooth agenesis. A subgroup of 68 anterior maxillary implants (50 patients, mean age at implantation: 16.2 ± 2.3 years; range: 12-20) were clinically re-examined after a mean follow-up of 92.4 ± 61.2 months (range: 36-288). (3) Results: Primary implant survival was 93.8% overall (tooth loss: 97.7%; tooth agenesis: 92.3%). The clinical follow-up cohort showed no cases of peri-implantitis and patient satisfaction was high. Anterior maxillary implants demonstrated favorable esthetic outcomes (Pink Esthetic Score [PES]: 12.0 ± 1.1), with females exhibiting significantly higher scores than males. Vertical discrepancies between the implant crown and the contralateral tooth were observed in 41.2% of implants (infraocclusion: 32.4%; supraocclusion: 8.8%). They were significantly associated with tooth loss, non-mesofacial growth patterns and younger age at implantation, without significant influence on PES. (4) Conclusions: The growth-pattern-adapted implant placement met the predefined esthetic threshold and resulted in high primary implant survival, stable peri-implant health, and high satisfaction, supporting its feasibility for anterior maxillary implant placement during adolescence.
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.