ArticleEmergency medicine international2023
Clinical Effect and Aesthetic Evaluation of Minimally Invasive Implant Therapy.
Article in Emergency medicine international, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Computer-Aided Design/Computer-Aided Manufacturing of Customized Abutment for Rehabilitating a Malpositioned Implant Using Digital Flow: A Case Report.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Retracted: Clinical Effect and Aesthetic Evaluation of Minimally Invasive Implant Therapy.Emergency medicine international · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Retraction · 2023-12-20Concerns/Issues about Data · Concerns/Issues about Results and/or Conclusions · Concerns/Issues about Referencing/Attributions · Concerns/Issues about Peer Review · Investigation by Journal/Publisher · Investigation by Third Party · Paper Mill · Computer-Aided Content or Computer-Generated Content · Unreliable Results and/or Conclusions ·
- Retracted
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To explore the clinical effect and aesthetic evaluation of minimally invasive implant in the treatment of dentition defect. Methods: From April 2020 to May 2021, 60 patients who received implant restoration were collected as the research objects. Randomly divided into minimally invasive surgery group (30 patients) and routine surgery group (30 patients). The postoperative antibiotic use time, pain disappearance time, swelling degree, and pain degree of the two groups were compared. Follow-up for one year, record and compare the success rate of implants and aesthetic evaluation of restoration between the two groups. The evaluation of patients' satisfaction with restoration was collected and compared. Results: The operation time and antibiotic use time of patients in minimally invasive surgery group were significantly shorter than those in conventional surgery group, and the swelling degree rating was significantly better than that in conventional surgery group, with statistical significance ( Conclusion: Minimally invasive implant can achieve the same effect as conventional implant, and it has the advantages of lower postoperative swelling, shorter pain time, better aesthetic effect, and higher satisfaction after restoration.
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.