ArticleAfrican health sciences2023
Observation of the clinical effect of immediate implantation and delayed implantation in the maxillary and maxillary molars.
Article in African health sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- Editor's choice: Covid-19 and HIV are still very much with us.African health sciences · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To study the clinical application effect of two kinds of implants in the upper and lower molars. Methods: A selection of 120 patients (134 teeth) who underwent implant treatment in the upper and lower molars in the army hospital of the Chinese people's liberation army from January 2018 to June 2019 were divided into an immediate group (using immediate implantation) and a delayed group (using delayed implantation) using a random number table 60 cases (60 teeth) in each group; differences in implant success rate, buccal keratinized gingival width before and after treatment, alveolar bone absorption, periodontal pocket depth, and gingival aesthetic indicators were compared between the two groups. Results: The gingival aesthetics effect of the immediate group was better than that of the delayed group on the whole and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05); after 12 months of restoration, the implantation success rate of the immediate group was 96.67%. The deferred group was 93.33%, and the difference between the two groups was not statistically significant (P>0.05). Conclusion: Both delayed restoration and immediate implant restoration can achieve good results in implant restoration treatment in the maxillary and maxillary molars. However, immediate implantation has certain advantages in reducing the amount of alveolar bone absorption and maintaining the aesthetic effect of the gums.
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.