Trial reportClinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry2024
Evaluation of Timing of Implant Placement in Maxillary Esthetic Zone with Type I Extraction Sockets- A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Trial report in Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Patient-Reported and Clinician-Reported Esthetic Outcomes at Implant Sites Are Not Associated: A Systematic Review With Individual Participant Data Meta-Analysis.Clinical oral implants research · 2025Pooled it
- Review
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
Purpose: The present study aimed to evaluate the appropriate protocol to be followed in the maxillary esthetic zone involving single dental implants by comparing three implant placement protocols: immediate implant placement (IIP) with and without the socket shield technique (SST) and delayed implant placement (DIP) in terms of dynamic alterations in hard and soft tissues and patient-related outcome measures (PROMS). Materials and Methods: A total of 75 patients were recruited for the study and randomly allocated to the SST, IIP, and DIP groups (25 each). They were subjected to Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) assessment pre-operatively, 6 and 12 months post-operatively to evaluate changes in Crestal Bone Thickness (CBT). Soft tissue changes were evaluated using the pink aesthetic score (PES) and visual analogue scale (VAS) to assess the pain threshold and patient satisfaction. Results: There was a statistically significant difference in the mean reductions in crestal bone thickness (CBT) between and among the groups. The SST group demonstrated a significantly lower reduction in CBT (0.09) than the IIP and DIP groups, which showed a mean reduction in CBT of 0.18 and 0.50 at (p<0.01), respectively, at the end of 12 months. However, when the mean differences in PES between the groups were compared, there was a statistically significant difference for SST 13(2), IIP 10(2), and DIP 9(2) (p<0.01). Conclusion: Socket shield technique could be technique of choice for IIP when buccal bone thickness is <1mm as demonstrated by less reduction in CBT and better PES at the end of 12 months than the IIP and DIP groups.
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.