ArticleCureus2026
Implant Selection Patterns and Associated Clinical Determinants in Full-Mouth Rehabilitation: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis.
Article in Cureus, 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
introductionImplant-supported full-mouth rehabilitation is a predictable treatment modality for managing edentulous patients. Appropriate implant selection, particularly implant diameter, is influenced by several patient-, site-, implant-, and prosthetic-related factors. However, limited evidence is available regarding the clinical determinants that guide implant selection patterns in routine full-mouth rehabilitation. This study aimed to evaluate implant selection patterns in full-mouth rehabilitation and identify factors associated with the selection of wide-diameter implants. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective study reviewed the records of patients who underwent implant-supported full-mouth rehabilitation between January 2016 and December 2022. Data on patient demographics, smoking status, systemic health, jaw location, implant region, bone quality, bone augmentation, implant dimensions, implant characteristics, prosthetic design, and loading protocol were collected. The primary outcome was the selection of wide-diameter implants (≥4.5 mm). Descriptive statistics were calculated, and associations between variables and implant diameter categories were assessed using chi-square and independent-samples t-tests. Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were used to identify independent predictors while accounting for the clustering of arches within patients. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.
resultsA total of 178 patients contributed to 250 rehabilitated arches. Wide-diameter implants were selected for 43 (17.2%) arches, whereas non-wide-diameter implants were used for 207 (82.8%) arches. Wide-diameter implant selection was significantly associated with mandibular arches (p = 0.004), posterior implant regions (p = 0.001), poor bone quality (p < 0.001), bone augmentation procedures (p < 0.001), greater implant length (12.3 ± 2.1 mm; p = 0.002), fixed full-arch prostheses (p = 0.018), and loading protocols (p = 0.012). Multivariable GEE analysis identified bone augmentation (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 3.12, p < 0.001), poor bone quality (aOR = 2.64, p < 0.001), posterior implant region (aOR = 2.18, p < 0.001), mandibular arch (aOR = 1.87, p = 0.010), smoking (aOR = 1.88, p = 0.024), fixed full-arch prosthesis (aOR = 1.74, p = 0.039), and increasing age (aOR = 1.03, p = 0.046) as independent predictors of wide-diameter implant selection.
conclusionsImplant selection for full-mouth rehabilitation is influenced by multiple anatomical, biological, and prosthetic factors. Bone augmentation, poor bone quality, posterior implant location, mandibular arch placement, smoking status, fixed full-arch prosthetic design, and increasing age were independently associated with wide-diameter implant selection, highlighting the importance of individualized treatment planning for implant-supported rehabilitation.
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.