ReviewInternational journal of health sciences
Comparative efficacy of flapped versus flapless dental implant procedures: A meta-analysis.
Review in International journal of health sciences. 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.
- Clinical and Esthetic Outcomes of Vestibular Socket Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Dentistry journal · 2026Review
- Full-Arch Oral Rehabilitation in All-on-4 "M" Configuration Using Surgical Guides with Internal Cooling: A Clinical Case Report.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Comparison of flapless versus conventional flap implant placement on soft tissue health and prosthodontic outcomes.Bioinformation · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Dental implant procedures are crucial for replacing missing teeth, with various surgical techniques impacting the outcome. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effects of flapped and flapless surgical techniques on implant survival and marginal bone loss (MBL). Methods: We included clinical studies with at least ten subjects, excluding review articles, editorials, and conference abstracts. Studies were sourced from PubMed, Medline, ERIC, and Wiley, published between 2000 and 2022. Data were analyzed using random-effects models to compare implant survival and MBL between flapped and flapless techniques. Results: The review identified 21 studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Flapless techniques showed a higher implant survival rate with an approximate survival rate of 98.6% in prospective cohort studies and 95.9% in retrospective studies. MBL was consistently lower in the flapless group, averaging 0.6-2.1 mm, compared to 1.5-3 mm in the flapped group. Low-risk studies demonstrated more consistent and reliable results, supporting the efficacy of flapless procedures. Conclusion: Flapless implant surgery offers a viable alternative to traditional flapped surgery, showing higher rates of implant survival and less MBL. However, successful outcomes depend on advanced imaging, precise surgical techniques, and adequate training. Further high-quality studies are needed to confirm these findings and refine clinical recommendations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38974649PMC11226941What 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.