ArticleEvidence-based dentistry2021
Do immediately placed implants have better outcomes when placed with a minimal split-thickness envelope flap?
Article in Evidence-based dentistry, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Systematic Review on Immediate Implant Placement in Intact Versus Non-Intact Alveolar Sockets.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Design Randomised, controlled, single-blind, single-centre clinical trial.Case selection Adult patients in need of a single tooth extraction in the anterior maxillary and premolar region. Full mouth plaque scores below 25% and bleeding scores below 10%, with no active periodontal disease. As assessed by cone beam computed tomography; intact buccal plate, adequate mesiodistal space and adequate quality of bone.Data analysis Patients had immediate implant placement following extraction, either with a flap with no vertical releasing incision (control group) or a minimal split-thickness envelope flap (test group). The trial compared clinical, radiographic, aesthetic and patient-reported outcomes of immediately placed implants. Primary outcomes were measured using the pink (PES) and white (WES) aesthetic score. JMP Pro 13 was the statistical software used. Statistical comparisons were conducted at a 0.05 level of significance.Results In total, 28 patients were enrolled in the study, after exclusions. The total PES and WES scores were similar in the control and test groups. Implant survival and success rate after 12 months was 100%. Buccal plate thickness at 12 months post-loading was 2.78 mm in the control group and 2.54 mm in the test group, so there was no statistically significant difference between them. The majority of patients in both groups responded as 'positive' in the patient satisfaction questionnaire and visual analogue scale.Conclusions When comparing PES/WES scores, success/modified success rate, survival, mean buccal plate resorption and patient satisfaction, there were no differences between immediate implants placed with a flap or with a minimal split-thickness envelope flap.
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.