ArticleJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences2024
Comparing the Long-term Success Rates of Immediate Implant Placement vs. Delayed Implant Placement in Patients with Periodontally Compromised Teeth.
Article in Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- From Biological Mechanisms to Clinical Outcomes: A Scoping Review Comparing Immediate and Delayed Dental Implant Placement Protocols.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- A comparative study of immediate versus delayed implant placement in periodontally compromised patients.Bioinformation · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study aims to compare the long-term success rates of immediate implant placement and delayed implant placement in patients with periodontally compromised teeth. Materials and Methods: A total of 30 patients presenting with periodontally compromised teeth requiring extraction and subsequent implant placement were enrolled in this retrospective study. Patients were divided into two groups based on the timing of implant placement: Group A (immediate implant placement) and Group B (delayed implant placement). Implants were placed according to standard protocols. Patient records were reviewed for implant survival, peri-implant bone loss, and prosthetic complications. Data were statistically analyzed using appropriate tests. Results: The mean follow-up period was 5 years. In Group A, the implant survival rate was 90%, while in Group B, it was 83%. The mean peri-implant bone loss was 1.5 mm in Group A and 2.2 mm in Group B. Prosthetic complications were observed in three cases in Group A and five cases in Group B. The differences in implant survival and bone loss between the two groups were not statistically significant ( Conclusion: Both immediate implant placement and delayed implant placement demonstrated comparable long-term success rates in patients with periodontally compromised teeth.
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.