SynthesisOral health & preventive dentistry2024
Dental Implants Placed in Grafted and Non-Grafted Sites: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Oral health & preventive dentistry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Larger Vertical Ridge Augmentation: A Retrospective Multicenter Comparative Analysis of Seven Surgical Techniques.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Implant success in grafted vs non-grafted posterior mandibular sites: A clinical study.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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThere is a scarcity of data regarding the long-term follow-up of dental implants placed in grafted or non-grafted sites. The aim was to systematically review clinical studies which, compared the implant survival rate (ISR) after at least 10 years for dental implants placed in grafted and non-grafted sites. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe focused question addressed was: 'Is there a difference in the ISR of dental implants placed in grafted and non-grafted sites for at least a decade?' The inclusion criteria were: (a) clinical studies, (b) studies on patients who had undergone dental implant therapy, (c) studies with at least 10 years follow-up, and (d) studies that compared the clinical and radiographic status around implants placed in grafted and non-grafted sites. Indexed databases (PubMed/Medline, Scopus, EMBASE, OVID, ISI Web of Knowledge, and Google Scholar) were searched without time and language restrictions up to and including December 2020 using different keywords. The literature search was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The risk of bias was assessed, and the pattern of the present systematic review was customised to summarise pertinent information.
resultsThe initial search yielded 412 studies through electronic database searching. An additional 30 studies were identified through manual searching of full texts of studies. In total, three studies were included and processed for data extraction. In these studies, the number of participants ranged between 34 and 96 individuals. The mean age ranged between 47.2 and 67.6 years. The reported ISR ranged between 91.6% and 100%. All studies had a low risk of bias. Due to the high heterogeneity among the studies included, a meta-analysis could not be done. Prior sample-size estimation was done in none of the studies.
conclusionDental implants placed in grafted and non-grafted sites demonstrate similar ISR for at least a decade. However, further well-designed and power-adjusted studies are needed.
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.