ReviewAnnals of maxillofacial surgery
Long-term Outcomes of Tooth-implant Supported Prostheses - A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Review in Annals of maxillofacial surgery. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Tooth-implant supported prostheses (TISP) combine natural teeth and implants to restore function when full implant support is impractical. Their biomechanical performance remains debated due to differences in tooth and implant mobility. Objectives: To evaluate long-term survival, success and complication rates of TISP and assess how connector design, framework material and patient condition affect outcomes. Data Sources: PubMed, Scopus, Embase and Web of Science were searched through July 2024, with additional manual reference screening. Study Eligibility: Clinical studies with ≥12-month follow-up (short term) reporting survival, success or biological/mechanical complications of fixed TISP were included. Participants and Interventions: Twelve studies (732 patients; 840 prostheses) involving rigid or non-rigid connectors (NRCs) and metal-ceramic or zirconia frameworks were analysed. Study Appraisal: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed bias using Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Pooled proportions were calculated via random-effects meta-analysis. Results: The pooled survival rate was 91.7% (95% confidence interval 0.89-0.93) with low heterogeneity. NRCs showed fewer mechanical complications and slightly higher survival (+2.8%). Zirconia frameworks provided aesthetic benefits with survival comparable to metal-ceramic designs. Mechanical (screw loosening, chipping) and biological (marginal bone loss, tooth intrusion) complications were frequent, indicating survival alone does not ensure success. Limitations: Few primary studies and variable follow-up restrict generalisability. Conclusions: TISP is a conservative, reliable long-term option when multiple implants or grafting are unfeasible. NRCs and monolithic zirconia frameworks enhance biomechanical performance, but larger controlled trials are needed.
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.