ArticleORAL & implantology
Preservation of extraction socket in immediate implant placement: a clinical study.
Article in ORAL & implantology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Immediate implantation following tooth extraction in fresh maxillary molar socket with poor bone quality].Nan fang yi ke da xue xue bao = Journal of Southern Medical University · 2019Article
- Postextraction computer-guided implant surgery in partially edentate patients with metal restorations: a case report.ORAL & implantologyArticle
- Effects of the application of high-pressure oxygen on the treatment of periodontal disease in diabetic patients.ORAL & implantologyArticle
- Positioning of a contextual implant along with a sinus lift anchored with a block of heterologous bone.ORAL & implantologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThe objective of this study was to compare different approaches temporary restoration in an immediate implant placement. To determine the respective influence of each parameter, two treatment groups were formed; a strict and standardized study protocol was applied to minimize the influence of bias and confounding factors. The Pink Esthetic Score (PES) - the esthetic out-come of soft tissue appearance was evaluated. MATERIAL AND
methodsSixteen patients with a single failing tooth in the maxilla and a natural contralateral site were randomly distributed into two groups. Treatment variations affected the provisional restorative in detail, group 1 with immediate implant placement and immediate temporary restoration with the simulation of the first three mm of the root and the seal of the socket, group 2 with immediate implant placement and immediate temporary restoration without the seal of the socket. All patients received the final prosthetic restoration 10-12 weeks after implant placement. Standardized photographs were taken eight months after tooth extraction. Five competent observers analyzed the esthetic outcome according to the PES.
resultsThe overall scores of the four treatment groups revealed PES values of 8.47 (SD 2.08, group 1), 6.62 (SD 3.24, group 2). The differences between groups 1 and 2 and were statistically significant (P=0.015 and P=0.047). The single parameter analysis displayed a certain range of fluctuation and heterogeneity.
conclusionsImmediate implant placement and restoration appear to be a suitable alternative to early implant placement if an experienced surgeon is entrusted with the implantation procedure.
Indexed as
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.