Scholarlink

Purpose <p>This overview aimed to answer the following research question: <i>What is the current knowledge regarding the performance of the “All-on-Four” technique compared to other full-arch implant rehabilitation methods based on evidence from systematic reviews?</i></p> Methods <p>This overview assessed the performance of the “All-on-Four” concept versus other implant-supported full-arch rehabilitation techniques. Outcomes included implant number, loading protocol, marginal bone loss (MBL), and cumulative survival rate (CSR). The protocol was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023471446). A comprehensive search was performed across ten databases, including grey literature. Methodological quality was assessed using AMSTAR-2, and risk of bias was evaluated with ROBIS. Two reviewers independently conducted all steps, with a narrative synthesis of results.</p> Results <p>A total of 4,468 records were identified, and eight systematic reviews published between 2013 and 2021 were included. For the “All-on-Four” technique, CSR ranged from 94.8% to 99.3%, and mean MBL ranged from 1.1&#xa0;mm to 1.5&#xa0;mm. None of the reviews reported statistically significant differences suggesting the “All-on-Four” protocol is inferior to approaches with more implants. However, most reviews showed a high risk of bias and low methodological quality.</p> Conclusions <p>“All-on-Four” technique demonstrates clinical outcomes comparable to conventional full-arch rehabilitations, but evidence is limited by methodological weaknesses.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Rehabilitation of edentulous jaws using the “All-on-Four” treatment concept: an overview of systematic reviews

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年12月11日

查看全文
  • Cristiano Elias Figueiredo,
  • Nathan Estevão de Oliveira,
  • Gustavo Cassimiro,
  • Walbert de Andrade Vieira,
  • Gabriel Phelipe de Paula Santos,
  • Luiz Renato Paranhos,
  • Bruno Salles Sotto-Maior

摘要

Purpose

This overview aimed to answer the following research question: What is the current knowledge regarding the performance of the “All-on-Four” technique compared to other full-arch implant rehabilitation methods based on evidence from systematic reviews?

Methods

This overview assessed the performance of the “All-on-Four” concept versus other implant-supported full-arch rehabilitation techniques. Outcomes included implant number, loading protocol, marginal bone loss (MBL), and cumulative survival rate (CSR). The protocol was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023471446). A comprehensive search was performed across ten databases, including grey literature. Methodological quality was assessed using AMSTAR-2, and risk of bias was evaluated with ROBIS. Two reviewers independently conducted all steps, with a narrative synthesis of results.

Results

A total of 4,468 records were identified, and eight systematic reviews published between 2013 and 2021 were included. For the “All-on-Four” technique, CSR ranged from 94.8% to 99.3%, and mean MBL ranged from 1.1 mm to 1.5 mm. None of the reviews reported statistically significant differences suggesting the “All-on-Four” protocol is inferior to approaches with more implants. However, most reviews showed a high risk of bias and low methodological quality.

Conclusions

“All-on-Four” technique demonstrates clinical outcomes comparable to conventional full-arch rehabilitations, but evidence is limited by methodological weaknesses.