| Title |
Occlusal rehabilitation in patients with congenitally missing teeth—dental implants, conventional prosthetics, tooth autotransplants, and preservation of deciduous teeth—a systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Implant Dentistry, November 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40729-015-0025-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hendrik Terheyden, Falk Wüsthoff |
| Abstract |
Implant patients with congenitally missing teeth share some common charateristics and deserve special attention. The PICO question was "In patients with congenitally missing teeth, does an early occlusal rehabilitation with dental implants in comparison to tooth autotransplants, conventional prosthetics on teeth or preservation of deciduous teeth have better general outcomes in terms of survival, success and better patient centered outcomes in terms of quality of life, self-esteem, satisfaction, chewing function?" After electronic database search, a total of 63 relevant studies were eligible, of which 42 qualified for numerical data synthesis, 26 being retrospective studies. A data synthesis was performed by weighted means for survival/success/annual failure rates. The mean survival of implants was 95.3 % (prosthesis survival 97.8 %), autotransplants 94.4 %, deciduous teeth 89.6 %, and conventional prostheses 60.2 %. The implant survival in children, adolescents, and adults was 72.4, 93.0, and 97.4 %. Annual failure rates of implants 3.317 %, autotransplants 1.061 %, deciduous teeth 0.908 %, and conventional prostheses 5.144 % indicated better results for natural teeth and more maintenance needs for the both prosthetic treatments. The mean OHIP score was 27.8 at baseline and a mean improvement of 14.9 score points was reported after implant prosthetics. The mean satisfaction rates were 93.4 (implants), 76.6 (conventional prostheses), 72.0 (autotransplants), and 65.5 % (orthodontic space closure). In synopsis of general and patient-centered outcomes, implants yielded the best results, however, not in children <13 years. Autotransplants and deciduous teeth had low annual failure rates and are appropriate treatments in children and adolescents at low costs. Conventional prosthetics had lower survival/success rates than the other options. Due to heterogeneity and low number of studies, patient-reported outcomes in this review have to be interpreted with caution. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 128 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 127 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 19 | 15% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 14 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 11 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 7% |
| Other | 31 | 24% |
| Unknown | 35 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 74 | 58% |
| Unspecified | 7 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 2% |
| Materials Science | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 8 | 6% |
| Unknown | 32 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 December 2016.
All research outputs
#7,547,176
of 23,025,074 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Implant Dentistry
#16
of 103 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#120,104
of 387,538 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Implant Dentistry
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,025,074 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 103 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 387,538 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them