Framework Materials for Full-Arch Implant-Supported Rehabilitations: A Systematic Review of Clinical Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this systematic review was to investigate the clinical outcomes of frameworks made of different materials in patients with implant-supported full-arch prostheses. A literature search was conducted on MEDLINE, Scopus and Cochrane Library, until the 1st of March 2021, with the following search terms: framework or substructure combined with "dental implants". The outcomes evaluated were: implant and prosthesis survival, bone resorption, biological and technical complications. The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions was employed to assess the risk of bias in randomized clinical trials. The Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale was used for non-randomized studies. In total, 924 records were evaluated for title and abstract, and 11 studies were included in the review: 4 clinical randomized trials and 7 cohort studies. The framework materials investigated were: gold alloy, titanium, silver-palladium alloy, zirconia and polymers including acrylic resin and carbon-fiber-reinforced composites. High implant and prosthetic cumulative survival rates were recorded by all included studies. Various materials and different fabrication techniques are now available as alternatives to traditional cast metal frameworks, for full-arch implant-supported rehabilitations. Further long-term studies are needed to validate the use of these materials and clarify their specific clinical indications and manufacturing protocols to optimize their clinical outcomes.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".