ReviewORAL & implantology
Post extractive implant: evaluation of the critical aspects.
Review 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.
- The low invasiveness design (LID) flap in immediate implant placement: a 20-patient case series on a novel flap design based on new insights into papilla vascularization.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Article
- Three-dimensional alveolar bone assessment of mandibular molars for immediate implant placement: a virtual implant placement study.BMC oral health · 2021Article
- [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
- New Implant Design with Midcrestal and Apical Wing Thread for Increased Implant Stability in Single Postextraction Maxillary Implant.Case reports in dentistry · 2019Article
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
purposeNowadays, implant supported prosthetic rehabilitation is a reliable procedure to replace compromised or untreatable teeth. The purpose of this review is to explore the concept of post extractive implant and the indications for clinical practice through an analysis of recent studies in the literature. All the main factors that could influence the outcome of this treatment will also be considered. MATERIALS AND
methodsFocusing on the extraction-socket healing time, three different implant insertion protocols have been defined: Immediate implant placement (IIP), Early implant placement (EIP), Delayed implant placement (DIP). The entity of bone remodeling can be associated with different factors: three dimensional implant position, presence/absence of platform switching, absence of facial bony wall, inter implant/tooth distance.
resultsAll the studies in literature agreed that implant primary stability is the main condition for a successful osseointegration of dental implants. Primary implant stability is influenced by many factors including local bone quality and quantity, implant macro-design, soft tissue conditions and rehabilitation, surgical technique, prosthetic load timing, oral hygiene.
conclusionsThere is insufficient evidence in literature to determine possible advantages or disadvantages of IIP, EIP or DIP. Studies suggest that IIP and EIP may be at higher risks of implant failures and complications than delayed implants; on the other hand the aesthetic outcome might be better when placing implants just after teeth extraction.
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.