ArticleAnnals of maxillofacial surgery
A Comprehensive Analysis of Flapless and Conventional Flap Technique in Dental Implant Surgery - A Comparative Study.
Article in Annals of maxillofacial surgery. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Minimally Invasive Implant Rehabilitation in Geriatric Patients: A Comprehensive Narrative Review of Contemporary Strategies to Avoid Extensive Bone Augmentation Procedures.Geriatrics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Evaluation of microsurgical versus conventional periodontal flap procedures: A prospective randomized comparison.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- Treatment Planning for Single-Tooth Implant: A Clinical Guide and Literature Review.Journal of maxillofacial and oral surgery · 2025Review
- Article
- Comparison of flapless versus conventional flap implant placement on soft tissue health and prosthodontic outcomes.Bioinformation · 2025Article
- Soft tissue healing in flapless versus conventional flap implant placement: A longitudinal 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: This study aims to advance evidence-based implant dentistry through a meticulous assessment of clinical and radiographic outcomes of two implant techniques, providing valuable insights for clinicians and researchers on their long-term success. Materials and Methods: A 5-year, split-mouth, randomised, double-blind clinical trial with 40 volunteers compared Group A (flapless technique) and Group B (standard flap technique) across 40 sites each. Clinical and radiographic assessments were conducted, and data were analysed using SPSS Version 22.0 with a significance level of Results: Participants aged 21-49 years showed that Group A (flapless) had higher baseline marginal bone loss but significantly less bone loss from 1 to 5 years compared to Group B ( Discussion: Flapless implant surgery aligns with minimally invasive dentistry, reducing surgical trauma, improving aesthetics, shortening surgery time and enhancing patient satisfaction. It is suitable for various patient groups and represents a strategic shift in practices, especially in sites with favourable soft- and hard-tissue conditions.
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.