Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29464470›Full record

Trial reportOdontology2018

Open flap versus flapless placement of dental implants. A randomized controlled pilot trial.

Enric Jané-Salas, Xavier Roselló-LLabrés, Enric Jané-Pallí, Siddharth Mishra, Raúl Ayuso-Montero, José López-López

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Odontology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Effects of flapless and flapped implantations on soft tissue: a systematic review and Meta-analysis.Hua xi kou qiang yi xue za zhi = Huaxi kouqiang yixue zazhi = West China journal of stomatology · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Immediate Loading of Implants Placed by Guided Surgery in Geriatric Edentulous Mandible Patients.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Enric Jané-SalasOral Health and Masticatory System Group (Bellvitge Biomedical Research Institute) IDIBELL, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain.
Xavier Roselló-LLabrésOral Health and Masticatory System Group (Bellvitge Biomedical Research Institute) IDIBELL, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain.
Enric Jané-PallíOral Medicine Unit, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences (Dentistry), Dental Hospital University of Barcelona, Barcelona University, Barcelona, Spain.
Siddharth MishraMaster of Medicine, Surgery and Oral Implantology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences (Dentistry), University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Raúl Ayuso-MonteroOral Health and Masticatory System Group (Bellvitge Biomedical Research Institute) IDIBELL, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain.
José López-LópezOral Health and Masticatory System Group (Bellvitge Biomedical Research Institute) IDIBELL, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain. jl.lopez@ub.edu.

Funding

Microdent Implant System N/A
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the immediate postoperative period of participants rehabilitated with dental implants placed with a conventional technique or with a minimally invasive technique, without a mucoperiosteal flap elevation (flapless). Participants who needed implant placement were divided into two groups: one group was operated using a mucoperiosteal flap elevation (G_A), and the other with a flapless surgical technique (G_B). Objective clinical parameters including oral hygiene, mouth opening, inflammation (facial perimeter), surgical time and analgesic consumption, as well as subjective parameters of pain and degree of satisfaction with the procedure, were evaluated. 48 implants were placed in 30 participants (15 participants per group). Oral hygiene index, maximum interincisal opening, pain and analgesic consumption values had a significant difference between groups favoring the flapless technique at 24 h and 7 days but at the 15 days' follow-up the differences were only significant for oral hygiene and pain (P < 0.05); there were no statistically significant differences between groups in terms of facial perimeter values and surgical time (P > 0.05). Average on the degree of satisfaction was of 2.6 (SD 0.8) for G_A and 3.6 (SD 1.02) for G_B (P = 0.06). One implant placed in G_A (2.0%) failed before prosthetic loading due to mobility and pain at 3 months' follow-up. Participants operated for implant placement with flapless surgical technique go through less postoperative discomfort. Both techniques show high success rates, but to perform a flapless technique patients must be properly selected.

Indexed as

Dental ImplantsSurgical FlapsAdultAgedDental Implantation, EndosseousDental Restoration FailureFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPain MeasurementPilot ProjectsTreatment OutcomeDental ImplantsDental implantsHumansInflammationPainSurgical flap

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.