ArticleJournal of periodontal & implant science2025
Immediate implant placement in the premolar maxillary area: a cone-beam computed tomography study.
Article in Journal of periodontal & implant science, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis research aimed to investigate potential factors associated with the risk of perforation of the labial bone plate, nasal floor, or maxillary sinus floor during immediate implant placement (IIP) in the maxillary premolar area, utilizing a cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) virtual study.
methodsCBCT exams from 179 eligible participants, encompassing 716 teeth, were included. Implants were virtually positioned in 2 orientations: along the long axis of the tooth (the prosthetically-driven position) and in an optimal position relative to adjacent anatomical structures (the bone-driven position). Binary logistic regression analysis was employed to assess potential associations between perforation or invasion and various covariates, including sex, age, tooth region, the distance from the tooth apex to the nasal floor or maxillary sinus floor, the angle between the prosthetically- and bone-driven positions (implant-line A angle [ILAA]), and the labial concavity angle (LCA).
resultsThe mean ILAA was 18.3°±8.0°, and the angle was significantly larger for the second premolar compared to the first premolar. The mean minimum implant length was 13.0±2.1 mm, with a bone anchorage of 4 mm. The incidence of perforation was 84.1% for the prosthetically-driven position and 40.5% for the bone-driven position. Factors associated with a higher risk of cortical bone wall perforation or invasion of the 2-mm safety margin from surrounding anatomical structures (in the bone-driven position) included female sex, older age, shorter distance from the tooth apex to the nasal cavity/maxillary sinus, and smaller LCA.
conclusionsA high prevalence of cortical bone wall perforation or invasion of the 2-mm safety margin is anticipated when performing IIP in the maxillary premolar region.
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.