Definition and research guide
This page combines a MeSH definition, publication statistics and selected research abstracts. It is a starting point for reading the literature, not a medical textbook or a systematic evidence review.
Content available: 3 complete abstracts (781 words), 9 references. Full article text is not stored or reproduced here; follow the PMID, DOI or PMC links to read the original sources and their access terms.
Definition
An artificial replacement for one or more natural teeth or part of a tooth, or associated structures, ranging from a portion of a tooth to a complete denture. The dental prosthesis is used for cosmetic or functional reasons, or both. dentures and specific types of dentures are also available. (From Boucher's Clinical Dental Terminology, 4th ed, p244 and Jablonski, Dictionary of Dentistry, 1992, p643)
Definition: NLM Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) scope note (Public domain (U.S. National Library of Medicine); attribution requested). View the MeSH record.
Also known as: Dental Prostheses; Prostheses, Dental; Prosthesis, Dental.
Where it fits in the MeSH classification
- Broader topics
- Prosthodontics; Prostheses and Implants
- Narrower topics
- Crowns; Dental Abutments; Dental Cavity Lining; Dental Clasps; Dental Implants; Dental Prosthesis Design; Dental Prosthesis Repair; Dental Prosthesis Retention; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Dental Restoration Failure; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Dental Restoration, Temporary; Dental Veneers; Dentures
- See also
- Dentures; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Dental Restoration, Temporary; Dental Restoration Failure
Related concepts
Research landscape
PubMed indexes 127,327 records tagged with the MeSH heading “Dental Prosthesis” (counts retrieved 2026-11-04). 19,903 of them (15.6%) were published from 2020 onward, and the busiest period so far is through 1999 with 56,833 records.
Reviews account for 9,616 records (7.6%) and meta-analyses for 1,520. Randomized controlled trials number 5,171 (4.1%) as a share of all records on the topic.
Show the data
| Period | Records |
|---|---|
| through 1999 | 56,833 |
| 2000-2009 | 21,554 |
| 2010-2019 | 29,037 |
| 2020 onward | 19,903 |
Publication-type chart data
| Type | Records | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Reviews | 9,616 | 7.6% |
| Meta-analyses | 1,520 | 1.2% |
| Randomized controlled trials | 5,171 | 4.1% |
Method: PubMed query "Dental Prosthesis"[MeSH Terms] with publication-type and date filters, retrieved 2026-11-04.
Reading the evidence in diagnostics and medical technology
A test or device is judged by how well it detects a condition, how often it gives false alarms or misses cases, and whether using it improves outcomes for people. Accuracy depends on who is tested and how common the condition is, so a test that performs well in a specialist hospital can perform differently in the community. Check the reference standard, the population studied, the sensitivity and specificity and whether results were confirmed in a separate group.
Evidence from open-access studies
These open-access studies come from PubMed’s best-match results for this heading (papers whose main topic it is), ranked here by citation count, with one recent addition. Each abstract is reproduced in full under its recorded open licence so that you can read the authors’ own words. They illustrate the literature; they are not a systematic summary of it. Citation counts measure attention, not reliability or clinical benefit.
| Study / authors | Year | Source label / design | Europe PMC citations | Licence / source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Influence of Air Polishing and Ultrasonics on Veneer Margins in Vitro: An Optical Coherence Tomography Pilot Study | 2026 | Research article Design not recorded in structured metadata | 1 | cc by PMID 42462073 · DOI · PMC13375077 |
| Prospective clinical study to evaluate the survival of two-piece zirconia implants: a single-center study. 36-month results | 2026 | Research article Design not recorded in structured metadata | 1 | cc by PMID 42616228 · DOI · PMC13490025 |
| Transfer Accuracy of Closed-Tray Implant Impressions: An In Vitro Comparison Across Five Implant Systems | 2026 | Research article Design not recorded in structured metadata | 1 | cc by PMID 42335335 · DOI · PMC13290013 |
Influence of Air Polishing and Ultrasonics on Veneer Margins in Vitro: An Optical Coherence Tomography Pilot Study [1]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- ObjectiveIn vitro evaluation of substance loss at the restoration margin of veneers was conducted as a function of prophylaxis procedures, air polishing, or ultrasonic instrumentation.
- Closing excerpt
- Clinical significanceThe choice of luting and veneer material seems to have a more significant influence on the extent of substance loss than the type of instrumentation of the prophylaxis procedure.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (185 words)
ObjectiveIn vitro evaluation of substance loss at the restoration margin of veneers was conducted as a function of prophylaxis procedures, air polishing, or ultrasonic instrumentation.Materials and methodsForty-eight extracted premolars were restored with CAD/CAM materials after veneer preparation (t0): lithium disilicate, zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate ceramics, and resin-based composite. Five cycles of prophylaxis treatment (air polishing or ultrasonic scaling) and thermocycling (tE) were conducted. The substance loss of the luting material at the restoration margin was evaluated regarding width, depth, and the veneer inclination angle using optical coherence tomography and contour analysis. Group differences were determined using two-factor analysis of variance, Tukey tests, and linear regression models.ResultsBoth prophylaxis procedures lead to substance loss at the restoration margin. The material choice had a significant effect on width and depth at the veneer margin (p ConclusionsBoth prophylactic procedures cause substance loss at the margins of the investigated CAD/CAM ceramic as well as composite veneers in the area of adhesive bonding.Clinical significanceThe choice of luting and veneer material seems to have a more significant influence on the extent of substance loss than the type of instrumentation of the prophylaxis procedure.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 42462073 · DOI · PMC13375077
Prospective clinical study to evaluate the survival of two-piece zirconia implants: a single-center study. 36-month results [2]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- PurposeTo evaluate the 36-month survival and clinical outcomes of two-piece zirconia implants restored with screw-retained glass-ceramic crowns on PEKK abutments.
- Closing excerpt
- Extended follow-up through 60 months is ongoing.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (378 words)
PurposeTo evaluate the 36-month survival and clinical outcomes of two-piece zirconia implants restored with screw-retained glass-ceramic crowns on PEKK abutments.MethodsThis prospective single-center clinical study evaluated implant survival as the primary outcome, with secondary outcomes including peri-implant soft tissue parameters, marginal bone level changes, and patient-reported outcome measures. Twenty-four patients received single CERALOG Hexalobe two-piece zirconia implants manufactured by ceramic injection molding (CIM) in healed sites. After 6-month submerged healing, implants were restored with provisional screw-retained crowns on PEKK abutments, followed by definitive lithium disilicate crowns (IPS e.max Press) on PEKK abutments secured with titanium abutment screws (25 Ncm). Clinical and radiographic examinations were performed at implant placement, re-entry, definitive loading, and at 12-, 24-, and 36-month follow-ups. Implant survival was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier estimates.ResultsOf 23 evaluable implants, nine failed within the first 12 months: six due to failed osseointegration (two at re-entry, three during provisional restoration, one after definitive loading) and three due to implant fracture (one during provisional restoration, two after definitive loading). Kaplan-Meier survival rate was 60.9% (95% CI; 41-81%) at 12 months. No additional failures occurred between 12 and 36 months. Peri-implant soft tissue parameters of surviving implants showed favorable trends (PPD: 2.7 ± 0.7 mm at 12 months, 2.0 ± 0.5 mm at 24 months, 1.9 ± 0.8 mm at 36 months; BOP: 26%, 21%, and 18%, respectively; MGI: 0.38 ± 0.36 at 12 months, 0.40 ± 0.76 at 24 months, 0.21 ± 0.48 at 36 months). At the implant level, peri-implant mucositis was diagnosed in 7 of 13 implants (53.8%) at 36 months; no peri-implantitis was observed throughout the observation period. Mean DIB was 1.9 ± 0.6 mm at definitive loading, 1.6 ± 0.5 mm at 24 months, and 1.5 ± 0.9 mm at 36 months. One abutment screw loosening at 24 months was successfully managed. Patients with surviving implants reported high satisfaction scores (overall satisfaction: 5.0 ± 0.0 at 36 months).ConclusionsThe 39.1% early failure rate within the first 12 months was followed by stable marginal bone levels through 36 months in implants that achieved successful osseointegration. However, peri-implant mucositis remained prevalent at 36 months, underlining the need for peri-implant maintenance. The early post-loading period represents the critical determinant of long-term implant survival in this system. Extended follow-up through 60 months is ongoing.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 42616228 · DOI · PMC13490025
Transfer Accuracy of Closed-Tray Implant Impressions: An In Vitro Comparison Across Five Implant Systems [3]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- ObjectiveThis in vitro study aimed to evaluate and compare the transfer accuracy of implant impression systems utilizing transfer caps for the closed-tray technique across five different implant systems, with the open-tray (pick-up) technique serving as a reference.
- Closing excerpt
- These findings support the potential clinical reliability and reproducibility of closed-tray systems across multiple implant manufacturers.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (218 words)
ObjectiveThis in vitro study aimed to evaluate and compare the transfer accuracy of implant impression systems utilizing transfer caps for the closed-tray technique across five different implant systems, with the open-tray (pick-up) technique serving as a reference.Materials and methodsSix bone-level implants from different manufacturers (SIC Invent, BEGO, Bredent, Camlog, and Straumann) were placed in a 3D-printed custom-designed master model. The master model with the inserted implants and the attached scan bodies served as the reference model. The implant master model was duplicated 10 times by means of conventional impressions. Based on these impressions, the master models were fabricated. Finally, closed-tray impressions using transfer caps were taken ten times for each system, and one system (SIC Invent) was also tested using the open-tray technique. Polyether impression material and standardized laboratory protocols were used throughout. The accuracy of the impressions was evaluated through 3D superimposition using Final Surface software, comparing master models to a reference model. Deviation measurements were statistically analyzed using rank-based ANOVA.ResultsNo statistically significant differences were found in the transfer accuracy among the five closed-tray systems. Similarly, the closed-tray technique showed comparable precision to the open-tray technique.ConclusionClosed-tray implant impressions using transfer caps can achieve transfer accuracy on par with the open-tray technique. These findings support the potential clinical reliability and reproducibility of closed-tray systems across multiple implant manufacturers.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 42335335 · DOI · PMC13290013
Key reviews and meta-analyses
The most cited review-type papers among PubMed’s best-match results for this heading, listed with bibliographic details only. Follow the links for the full text and access terms.
- Research article What is the prevalence of peri-implantitis? A systematic review and meta-analysis [4]
- Research article Microbiota associated with peri-implantitis-A systematic review with meta-analyses [5]
- Research article Primordial and primary prevention of peri-implant diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis [6]
- Research article Do dental implants placed in patients with osteoporosis have higher risks of failure and marginal bone loss compared to those in healthy patients? A systematic review with meta-analysis [7]
- Research article Prevalence, incidence, systemic, behavioral, and patient-related risk factors and indicators for peri-implant diseases: An AO/AAP systematic review and meta-analysis [8]
- Research article Clinical longevity of direct and indirect posterior resin composite restorations: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis [9]
References
- Moeller J, Meissner T, Fuchs F, Koenig A, Hahnel S, Mayer LA, et al.. Influence of Air Polishing and Ultrasonics on Veneer Margins in Vitro: An Optical Coherence Tomography Pilot Study. . 2026. PMID 42462073 · DOI · PMC13375077
- Jennes ME, Mao Z, Atay E, Herklotz I, Bessonova M, Hey J, et al.. Prospective clinical study to evaluate the survival of two-piece zirconia implants: a single-center study. 36-month results. . 2026. PMID 42616228 · DOI · PMC13490025
- Zweigardt W, Schneider B, Ströbele D, Mosch R, von See C. Transfer Accuracy of Closed-Tray Implant Impressions: An In Vitro Comparison Across Five Implant Systems. . 2026. PMID 42335335 · DOI · PMC13290013
- Diaz P, Gonzalo E, Villagra LJG, Miegimolle B, Suarez MJ. What is the prevalence of peri-implantitis? A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Oral Health. 2022. PMID 36261829 · DOI · PMC9583568
- Carvalho ÉBS, Romandini M, Sadilina S, Sant'Ana ACP, Sanz M. Microbiota associated with peri-implantitis-A systematic review with meta-analyses. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2023. PMID 37523470 · DOI
- Carra MC, Blanc-Sylvestre N, Courtet A, Bouchard P. Primordial and primary prevention of peri-implant diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Periodontol. 2023. PMID 36807599 · DOI
- Lemos CAA, de Oliveira AS, Faé DS, Oliveira HFFE, Del Rei Daltro Rosa CD, Bento VAA, et al.. Do dental implants placed in patients with osteoporosis have higher risks of failure and marginal bone loss compared to those in healthy patients? A systematic review with meta-analysis. Clin Oral Investig. 2023. PMID 37043030 · DOI
- Galarraga-Vinueza ME, Pagni S, Finkelman M, Schoenbaum T, Chambrone L. Prevalence, incidence, systemic, behavioral, and patient-related risk factors and indicators for peri-implant diseases: An AO/AAP systematic review and meta-analysis. J Periodontol. 2025. PMID 40489307 · DOI · PMC12273760
- Josic U, D'Alessandro C, Miletic V, Maravic T, Mazzitelli C, Jacimovic J, et al.. Clinical longevity of direct and indirect posterior resin composite restorations: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Dent Mater. 2023. PMID 37827872 · DOI
About this article
- Sources
- NLM Medical Subject Headings (definition, synonyms); NCBI PubMed (counts, identifiers); Europe PMC (open-access abstracts and citation counts).
- Verification
- Every reference was resolved against PubMed on 2026-11-04; title, year and DOI matched.
- Review state
- automated source verified; no human expert review has been recorded yet.
- Version
- 1, last updated 2026-11-04.
See how EvidenceLib is built. Spotted an error? Email support@evidencehelix.com.
Evidence strength
EvidenceHelix's computed view of the study designs behind this topic: how common meta-analyses, randomized trials and reviews are, how recent the literature is, and a plain-language reading. It describes the design mix of the literature. It is not a quality appraisal of any study, and it is not medical advice.