The systematic review presents an important comparison between implant-assisted maxillary prostheses and conventional maxillary dentures. However, one aspect raises a concern: the review includes only six studies, with publication dates ranging from 1994 to 2021, despite being published in 2025. This limited and dated literature may not fully capture advances in implant technology, materials, and techniques, particularly given rapid developments in dental prosthetics over the past decade.
Could the authors elaborate on how the review’s conclusions remain relevant and representative of current practices, given the restricted and potentially outdated evidence base? Furthermore, do the authors foresee the need for new high-quality studies to address potential gaps or limitations in the existing body of literature?