Trial reportInternational journal of implant dentistry2025
Early versus conventional loading for fully guided immediate implant placement in molar sites: a randomized controlled clinical study.
Trial report in International journal of implant dentistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Influence of Immediate Versus Delayed Loading on Peri-Implant Bone Healing: A Comparative FEA Study of Titanium Threaded and Scaffold Dental Implants.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Comparative evaluation of immediate versus delayed loading in dental implants.Bioinformation · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate early versus conventional loading in immediate implants for molars. This study aims to answer the following PICO (Patient, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome) question: In patients over 18 years of age, does early loading of immediately placed implants in molar areas result in a similar implant survival rate and marginal bone loss as conventional loading?
methodsTwenty-seven patients (15 women and 12 men) received a total of 30 implants immediately after molar extraction. The surgical treatment protocol entailed atraumatic tooth extraction without flap elevation. Non-invasive quantitative analyses were used to assess implant stability. After an uneventful healing period, the 30 implants were restored with screw-retained monolithic zirconia prosthesis, half of which after 6 weeks (G1) and the other half after 3 months (G2).
resultsRegarding the survival rate, the Kaplan-Meier and log-rank test showed that there was no statistically significant difference between both groups (p = 1). Implant stability quotient at the prosthetic phase of both groups (6 weeks in G1 and 3 months in G2) revealed no statistically significant difference (G1 RFA74.4 (SD 5.54) - DCA 79.07 (SD 5.75))/G2 RFA 73.67 (SD 5.7), - DCA78.93 (SD 4.48).
conclusionsEarly loading of immediately placed implants in molar sites is considered a predictable treatment modality provided that ideal implant position and adequate insertion torque are achieved.
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.