Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36434348›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of implant dentistry2022

Immediate versus delayed implant placement in the esthetic zone: a prospective 3D volumetric assessment of peri-implant tissue stability.

Puria Parvini, Katharina Melissa Müller, Emilio A Cafferata, Frank Schwarz, Karina Obreja

Open access · diamondAbstract readControlled Clinical Trial
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of implant dentistry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Puria ParviniDepartment of Oral Surgery and Implantology, Goethe University, Carolinum, Frankfurt Am Main, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-9319-5550
Katharina Melissa MüllerDepartment of Oral Surgery and Implantology, Goethe University, Carolinum, Frankfurt Am Main, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-8121-5246
Emilio A CafferataDepartment of Oral Surgery and Implantology, Goethe University, Carolinum, Frankfurt Am Main, Germany. ecafferata@cientifica.edu.pe.ORCID 0000-0001-9243-1382
Frank SchwarzDepartment of Oral Surgery and Implantology, Goethe University, Carolinum, Frankfurt Am Main, Germany.
Karina ObrejaDepartment of Oral Surgery and Implantology, Goethe University, Carolinum, Frankfurt Am Main, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-3975-0020
Goethe University Frankfurt · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate the volumetric stability of peri-implant soft and hard tissue prospectively, this study compared immediate versus delayed implants placed in the anterior esthetic region.

methodsThis non-randomized controlled clinical study included 25 patients, who received an immediate (type 1) or a delayed (type 4) implant placement for the replacement of a single anterior tooth. The anterior maxillae were intraorally scanned at three timepoints: before surgery (S0), 6 months (S1), and 12 months (S2) after surgery. A specific region of interest (ROI), divided into marginal and apical regions, was determined and superimposed for volumetric changes analysis. At 6 and 12 months, the probing depth (PD), bleeding/suppuration on probing (BOP/SUP), modified plaque index (PI), keratinized mucosa (KM) width, mucosal recession (MR), and implant stability (PTV) by means of periotest were recorded.

resultsBetween S0-S2, tissue surrounding immediate implants was reduced in 0.37 ± 0.31 mm, whereas delayed implants gained 0.84 ± 0.57 mm mean tissue volume. Peri-implant tissue loss at type 1 implants occurred primarily in the marginal section of the ROI (0.42 ± 0.31 mm), whereas tissue gain at type 4 implants occurred mainly in the apical section (0.83 ± 0.51 mm). These values were significantly different between both groups for the entire ROI (p = 0.0452) and the marginal region (p = 0.0274). In addition, the mean buccal KM width around type 1 implants was significantly wider in comparison with the type 4 implants group after 12 months (p = 0.046). There were no significant differences between groups regarding PD, BOP/SUP, or PTV.

conclusionsThe results suggest that type 1 implants placed in the esthetic region experience more tissue loss than type 4 implants, thus marginal tissue remodeling should be considered for planning immediate implants placement in the anterior maxillae.

Indexed as

Dental ImplantsDental Implants, Single-ToothDental Implantation, EndosseousEstheticsHumansProspective StudiesDental ImplantsDelayed implantationImmediate implantationIntraoral scanVolumetric analysis

Identifiers

PMID36434348
PMCPMC9700553
OpenAlexW4309961371

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.