ArticleClinical and experimental dental research2025
Relevance and Timing of Implant-Driven Rehabilitation in Central Giant Cell Granuloma Cases-A Scoping Review.
Article in Clinical and experimental dental research, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesCentral giant cell granuloma (CGCG) is a rare benign tumor. Extended aggressive lesions require large resections, which can lead to bone defects and tooth loss. Rehabilitative treatment is necessary to restore good aesthetics and function. However, the protocol for implant treatment post-CGCG is still unclear. The objective of this scoping review is to shed light on the rehabilitation protocol for CGCG sites by outlining the relevance and timing of implant surgery and prosthetic rehabilitation. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses statement and searched databases for data published between 1999 and 2023. The scoping review aimed to answer the question: "In patients with a diagnosed and treated CGCG, able to receive an implant, does the CGCG tumor recur before or after implant surgery"? Only articles that described cases where patients with a diagnosed CGCG received an implant in a site previously affected by CGCG were included.
resultsThe review describes seven case reports and one case series that discuss implantology-driven restoration after CGCG exeresis in humans. The patients, aged between 7 and 80 years, underwent surgical removal of CGCG and received implant-supported prosthetic rehabilitation. A total of 34 implants were placed between 4 and 60 months after the tumor-resection surgery. No recurring lesions were observed during the follow-up period, which ranged between 2 and 12 years.
conclusionsBased on the limited evidence available, it appears that implant placement after CGCG removal is safe after a minimum of 4 months of healing. However, further research is necessary to confirm this conclusion.
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.