SynthesisBMC oral health2025
Hard and soft tissue alterations after the application of different soft tissue grafting materials during immediate dental implant placement: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Platelet-rich fibrin versus acellular dermal matrix for vertical soft tissue augmentation simultaneously with dental implantation: a 3-month randomized pilot clinical trial.BMC oral health · 2025Trial
- Impact of the Buccal Dehiscence Morphotype on the Regenerative Strategy in Immediate Implant Placement.Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2026Article
- Osteo-Inductive Strategies for Enhancing Osseointegration and Optimizing Peri-Implant Emergence Profile: A Narrative Review.Dentistry journal · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this review is to compare the clinical outcomes of different soft tissue grafting materials (connective tissue graft (CTG), platelet-rich fibrin (L-PRF), allogenic and xenogenic substitutes) applied in immediate implant placement with each other.
methodsThrough an electronic search regarding the study's main question ("In patients with non-restorable teeth, who receive immediate dental implants (P), what is the best adjunctive soft tissue grafting approach among different autogenous, allogenous, and xenogenous grafts (I), to achieve the desired hard and soft tissue structure (O), compared to sites without grafting (C)?") in PubMed, Scopus, and ISI Web of Science, randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) using different soft tissue grafts were identified and analyzed using a Bayesian random-effect network meta-analysis framework. The pink esthetic score (PES), marginal interproximal bone level changes (MIBL), buccal bone thickness changes (BBT), keratinized tissue width changes (KTW), soft tissue thickness changes (STT), papilla height changes (PH), midfacial gingival margin level changes (MGML) were defined as desired outcomes of the study; except for the MIBL with 12 - 24 months of follow-up, 6 - 12 months is considered for other outcomes.
resultsAfter duplication removal, 903 studies were identified through the electronic search; from which 21 RCTs were included in the review. Among all comparisons in different outcomes, only CTG demonstrated a significantly higher gain in STT compared to not placing soft tissue graft. However, CTG in MIBL, KTW, STT, PH, and MGML, and uni-layer xenogenic collagen matrix in PES were the superior treatments, according to the treatment ranking based on surface under cumulative ranking (SUCRA).
conclusionsAt the time of immediate implantation, there is no significant difference between different soft tissue grafts regarding the clinical outcomes of implants. However, the utilization of CTG can be suggested in cases with thin soft tissue. The acceptable efficacy of allogenic and xenogenic materials and the non-significant difference between them and CTG indicate supporting evidence for the application of these materials to specific clinical situations simultaneously with immediate implantation. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: CRD42024568586.
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.