ArticleClinical implant dentistry and related research2025
Effects of Bone Augmentation on Implant Success and Survival: A Retrospective Analysis With 6-Year Mean Follow-Up.
Article in Clinical implant dentistry and related research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bone Ring Grafts Versus Non-Resorbable Membrane GBR for Vertical Ridge Augmentation: A Prospective Cohort Study.Oral health & preventive dentistry · 2026Article
- Osteo-Inductive Strategies for Enhancing Osseointegration and Optimizing Peri-Implant Emergence Profile: A Narrative Review.Dentistry journal · 2026Review
- Preliminary clinical evaluation of guided bone regeneration using carbonate apatite granules and poly(lactic acid/caprolactone) membranes: a prospective interventional study.International journal of implant dentistry · 2026Article
- Birooted Mandibular Canine: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Implant Survival and Radiographic Outcome of a Novel Implant With a Machined Long Neck: A 1-Year Retrospective Study.Clinical implant dentistry and related research · 2026Article
- Evaluating Techniques for Vertical Ridge Augmentation via Comparative Study of Clinical Outcomes: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Article
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
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the clinical, radiographic, esthetic outcomes, and success and survival rates of dental implants placed after bone augmentation techniques.
methodsThis retrospective study included a total of 764 patients receiving 764 dental implants between 2009 and 2019. Four hundred implants were placed without bone augmentation (control), and 364 were placed after bone augmentation. Bone augmentation techniques were guided bone regeneration (GBR), ridge split, and onlay bone grafting. Gingival index (GI), plaque index (PI), probing depth (PD), bleeding on probing (BOP), pink esthetic score (PES) and marginal bone loss (mm) and area (mm
resultsThe mean PI and GI scores, and BOP values of the implants in the augmentation and control groups were comparable (p = 0.365, p = 0.230, and p = 0.371 resp.) The mean PD scores of the implants were 2.82 ± 1.22 in the augmentation and 2.54 ± 1.29 in the control groups; the difference was significant (p = 0.002). The mean vertical bone loss of the implants was 0.78 ± 0.70 in augmentation and 0.82 ± 0.82 in the control groups, which was comparable (p = 0.461). The mean PES total values of the implants were 8.30 ± 1.55 in augmentation and 10.04 ± 2.43 in the control groups; the difference was significant (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between the augmentation and control groups in implant survival (99.18% vs. 98%, p = 0.228) and success (82.97% vs. 85.50%, p = 0.389) rates. Significant differences in some study variables were observed among the augmentation groups. The survival and success rates of the implants in GBR (99.21% and 85.04%), ridge split (99.19% and 79.68%), onlay (99.12% and 84.21%), and control (98.00% and 85.50%) groups were similar (p = 0.630 and p = 0.479, resp.) in the 6-year mean follow-up.
conclusionThe implants placed in augmented bone showed similar cumulative success and survival rates compared to implants placed in natural bone with a 6-year mean follow-up. The augmentation group showed lower esthetic scores. There are some differences in clinical parameters among augmentation groups; however, all the augmentation groups showed similar success and survival rates.
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.