ArticleCureus2026
Clinical Performance and Survival Outcomes of All-on-4 Full-Arch Implant-Supported Prostheses in Patients With a Completely Edentulous Arch: A Retrospective Cohort Study.
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
introductionAll-on-4 full-arch implant-supported prostheses have become a predictable treatment option for rehabilitating completely edentulous patients by providing improved function, esthetics, and patient satisfaction while minimizing the need for extensive bone grafting. However, long-term evidence regarding implant survival, prosthetic success, and biological and mechanical complications is essential for validating their clinical effectiveness. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical performance, survival outcomes, biological and mechanical complications, and marginal bone loss associated with All-on-4 full-arch implant-supported prostheses after a minimum follow-up of 24 months. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective observational cohort study included 90 completely edentulous arches (360 implants) rehabilitated with All-on-4 full-arch implant-supported prostheses between January 2013 and March 2019. Clinical, surgical, prosthetic, and radiographic records were reviewed. The primary outcomes included implant survival, implant success, and prosthesis survival. Secondary outcomes included marginal bone loss, peri-implant health, and biological and mechanical complications. Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier estimates, and generalized estimating equations were used to evaluate the predictors of marginal bone loss. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.
resultsThe mean patient age was 58.4 ± 9.6 years. At 24 months, implant survival, implant success, and prosthesis survival rates were 96.7%, 93.3%, and 96.7%, respectively. Peri-implant mucositis was the most common biological complication, followed by screw loosening, occlusal wear, peri-implantitis, implant mobility, screw fracture, and framework and prosthesis fractures. Implant failure did not differ significantly according to arch location (p = 0.578) or the loading protocol (p = 0.092). Immediate loading demonstrated significantly lower marginal bone loss than delayed loading (0.54 ± 0.17 mm vs. 0.66 ± 0.21 mm; β = -0.118 mm; 95% CI: -0.192 to -0.044; p = 0.002).
conclusionAll-on-4 full-arch implant-supported prostheses demonstrated excellent medium-term clinical performance, with high implant and prosthesis survival rates, minimal complications, and favorable marginal bone preservation rates. Immediate loading was associated with significantly lower marginal bone loss, supporting its use in appropriately selected patients.
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.