The All‐on‐Four Treatment Concept: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The study aims to evaluate the all-on-four treatment concept with regard to survival rates (SRs) of oral implants, applied fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) and temporal changes in proximal bone levels. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review of publications in English and German was performed using the electronic bibliographic database MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, and Google. Hand searches were conducted of the bibliographies of related journals and systematic reviews. The authors performed evaluations of articles independently, as well as data extraction and quality assessment. Data were submitted the weighted least-squared analysis. RESULTS: Thirteen (487 initially identified) papers met inclusion criteria. A number of 4,804 implants were initially placed, of which 74 failed, with a majority of failures (74%) within the first 12 months. A total of 1,201 prostheses were incorporated within 48 hours after the surgery. The major prosthetic complication was the fracture of the all-acrylic FDP. The mean cumulative SR/SR ± (standard deviation) (36 months) of implants and prostheses were 99.0 ± 1.0% and 99.9 ± 0.3%, respectively. The averaged bone loss was 1.3 ± 0.4 mm (36 months). No statistically significant differences were found in outcome measures, when comparing maxillary versus mandibular arches and axially versus tilted placed implants. CONCLUSION: The available data provide promising short-term results for the all-on-four treatment approach; however, current evidence is limited by the quality of available studies and the paucity of data on long-term clinical outcomes of 5 years or greater. In terms of an evidence-based dentistry, the authors recommend further studies designed as randomized controlled clinical trials and reported according to the CONSORT statement.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".