ArticleFrontiers in dental medicine2025
Influencing factors and survival rates in immediate vs. delayed dental implant placement: a six-year retrospective analysis.
Article in Frontiers in dental medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Safety and feasibility of immediate implant placement in diabetic patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Biomedical reports · 2026Article
- Immediate vs. Delayed Implant Placement Following Alveolar Ridge Procedures with Xeno-Hybrid Bovine Bone Graft: A Retrospective Cohort with Operator-Level Comparison.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Comparative evaluation of immediate versus delayed loading in dental implants.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- Immediate Loading of Implants Placed Immediately in Fresh Sockets: A 10-Year Single-Arm Prospective Case Series Follow-Up.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Technical Complications and Marginal Bone Loss Depending on the Crown Material of Dental Implants in the Posterior Region: A 3-Year Randomized Clinical Study.Dentistry journal · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This retrospective cohort study aimed to compare survival rates between immediate (≤24 h post-extraction) and delayed (3-4 months post-extraction) dental implants and to identify patient- and site-specific risk factors for implant failure, with emphasis on anatomical site, sex, and osteoporosis. Methods: We analyzed 1,500 implants (300 immediate, 1,200 delayed) from patients treated at the Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine (2005-2023). Kaplan-Meier analysis evaluated cumulative survival rates over 72 months, with Cox regression modeling to assess predictors of failure. Propensity score matching (PSM) addressed baseline covariate imbalances. Results: Delayed implants exhibited significantly higher survival rates than immediate implants at 72 months (81.1% vs. 53.2%, Conclusions: Delayed implantation at 3-4 months post-extraction provides superior intermediate-term survival, particularly in mandibular sites. Male patients and individuals with osteoporosis face elevated failure risks, warranting tailored clinical protocols. While both strategies remain viable, delayed placement is recommended for high-risk populations to optimize long-term outcomes.
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.