SynthesisJournal of Indian Prosthodontic Society
Comparative evaluation of crestal bone level by flapless and flap techniques for implant placement: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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 · 2024Pooled it
- Digitally Guided Hydraulic Crestal Sinus Floor Elevation Versus Free-Hand Osteotome Technique: A Single-Blinded Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.Clinical oral implants research · 2026Trial
- Short-term cone beam CT study on bone mass changes post touch-controlled minimally invasive mandibular molar implant.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Article
- Assessment of peri-implant tissues in posterior implants placed using flapless approach: A clinicoradiographic study.Journal of Indian Society of PeriodontologyArticle
- A Comprehensive Analysis of Flapless and Conventional Flap Technique in Dental Implant Surgery - A Comparative Study.Annals of maxillofacial surgeryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: :To compare the crestal bone level of flapless technique of dental implant placement with the flap technique. Setting and Design: This Systematic review and Meta-analysis was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items For Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Guidelines and registered with PROSPERO. Materials and Methods: Electronic search of Medline and Google scholar databases for articles from 2010 till March 2020 was performed. Studies comparing the crestal bone level with both the techniques were included. After the collection of data, the risk of bias was assessed for each study. Statistical Analysis Used: Meta-analysis was executed using RevMan 5 software version 5.3. Results: 23 studies were included. Statistically significant difference in crestal bone level was found between flapless and flap surgery with mean difference of -0.14 (flapless placement versus flap surgery; 95% CI: -0.24 to -0.03; P = 0.01FNx01). The difference in crestal bone level between the 2 groups was not statistically significant with a mean difference of -0.05(Guided flapless placement versus flap surgery; 95% CI: -0.10 to 0.00; P=0.06). Meta-analysis of the freehand flapless surgery with flap surgery generated a mean difference of -0.20 which was found to be statistically significant (Freehand flapless placement versus flap surgery; 95% CI: -0.37 to -0.03; P=0.02FNx01). Conclusions: Flapless placement of implant can positively influence crestal bone loss in comparison with conventional flap technique.
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.