ArticleJournal of Indian Society of Periodontology
Assessment of peri-implant tissues in posterior implants placed using flapless approach: A clinicoradiographic study.
Article in Journal of Indian Society of Periodontology. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: It is important to prognosticate the hard- and soft-tissue alterations in immediate and delayed implants, as inadequacy can lead to complications affecting the long-term survival of the implant. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the hard- and soft-tissue changes in immediate and delayed posterior implants with a flapless approach. Materials and Methods: With an equal allocation ratio, the study included 46 patients requiring implant treatment in the posterior segment, including the premolars and molars. Group 1 consisted of patients with immediate implants, whereas Group 2 consisted of patients who received delayed implants. The clinical parameters, including plaque index (PI), gingival index, modified sulcus bleeding index, probing depth, and soft-tissue assessment using the Testori esthetic score (TS), were evaluated at baseline, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. Hard-tissue parameters, such as buccal bone thickness (BBT), crestal bone height (CBH), and ridge width, were evaluated radiographically with cone-beam computed tomography at baseline and 12 months posttherapy. Results: Intragroup comparisons in both the groups showed significant differences in PI, probing pocket depth, and TS over time ( Conclusion: A significant difference in TS scores after 12 months was found between the two groups, with better esthetics in Group 1 compared to Group 2. However, no significant changes in BBT or CBH were observed after 12 months in Group 1.
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.