ArticleEvidence-based dentistry2008
Soft tissue handling during implant placement.
Article in Evidence-based dentistry, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
data sourcesThe Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline and Embase were searched. Handsearching included several dental journals. Authors of all identified trials, an internet discussion group and 55 dental implant manufacturers were contacted to find unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCT). STUDY SELECTION: All RCT of root-form osseo-integrated dental implants comparing various techniques to handle soft tissues when placing dental implants were included. Outcome measures considered were: prosthetic and implant failures, aesthetics evaluated by patients and dentists, biological complications, postoperative pain, patient preference, ease of maintenance by patient, and width of the attached or keratinised mucosa. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were conducted in duplicate and independently by two review authors. Authors were contacted for missing information. Results were expressed as random-effects models using mean differences for continuous outcomes, and risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals. Heterogeneity was to be investigated, including both clinical and methodological factors.
resultsEight RCT were identified and five trials, which included 140 patients in total, were selected. Two trials (comprising 100 patients) compared flapless placement of dental implants with conventional flap elevation, two trials (20 patients) crestal versus vestibular incisions. On a patient (rather than per-implant) basis, implants placed with a flapless technique and implant exposures performed with a laser induced significantly less postoperative pain than flap elevation. There were no statistically significant differences for any of the other analyses.
conclusionsFlapless implant placement is feasible and has been shown to reduce patient postoperative discomfort in appropriately selected patients. Sufficient, reliable evidence is not available for recommendations to be made about which techniques or materials for incision or suture are most beneficial to patients. This is also the case for techniques to correct or augment perimplant soft tissues or to increase the width of keratinised or attached mucosa. Properly designed and conducted RCT are needed to provide reliable answers to these questions.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.