ArticleJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences2024
Comparison of Three-Dimensional Bone Changes in Socket Shield Technique Versus Immediate Implant Placement - A Non-Randomized Clinical Trial.
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: The present study assessed the three-dimensional bone loss, at three different levels, around implants placed immediately after extraction using the socket shield method versus immediate implant placement. Materials and Methods: A non-randomized clinical trial was conducted in 30 cases divided into two groups: socket shield method and immediate implant placement (15 cases each). Horizontal bone width (HBW) (at three different levels from baseline) and vertical bone level (VBL) (mesial and distal surfaces of the implant) were measured preoperatively and 6 months postoperatively by using cone beam computed tomography and radio visio graphy. Results: The mean difference at 2-mm and 8-mm HBW from the baseline was better in the socket shield technique, although the results were not significant. Significant results were found in Levene's test for equality of error variances. The VBL was significant at both the distal and mesial surfaces of the implant. Conclusion: The socket shield approach demonstrated promising clinical outcomes in preserving alveolar ridge morphology. It can be utilized as a substitute for the typical instantaneous implant placement in the aesthetic zone.
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.