ArticleScientific reports2025
Long-term outcomes and risk assessment of immediate implants at molar extraction sites in a Taiwan population.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pre-extractive Versus Postextractive Implant Site Preparation for Immediate Implant Placement in Mandibular Molar Sites: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International dental journal · 2026Pooled it
- The Influence of the Topical Combined Application of Dexamethasone, Ascorbic Acid, and β-Sodium Glycerophosphate on Implant Osseointegration: A Split-Mouth Randomized Clinical Trial.International journal of dentistry · 2026Article
- A Case Report: Immediate Implant Placement with PRF, Photogrammetry-Guided Workflow, and Monolithic Zirconia Full-Arch Restoration.Reports (MDPI) · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This long-term retrospective study evaluated the clinical and radiographic outcomes and assessed the risks associated with immediate molar implants (IMI) in a Taiwan population. This study analyzed the clinical and radiographic records of 62 implants in 43 patients who received IMI and had follow-up periods of 2-16.5 years. After implantation, patients underwent radiographic and clinical assessments. The primary outcomes were implant survival rate, midfacial mucosal tissue recession (MTR) and peri-implant marginal bone loss (MBL), which were calculated at the implant level. Moreover, information on implant- and patient- related risk factors for peri-implantitis was recorded and analyzed by univariable and multivariate analyses through the generalized estimating equation method. Approximately half of the molar extraction sites exhibited unique root anatomy and were classified as type C socket. A significant association was observed between a history of periodontitis and three-rooted mandibular first molar and MBL. The implant survival rate was approximately 98%. A history of periodontitis, poor oral hygiene, keratinized mucosa (KM) < 2 mm, and a follow-up period of > 8 years significantly predicted higher MBL. Male patients and those with a history of periodontitis, poor oral hygiene, MTR, and follow-up period of > 8 years exhibited a significantly higher risk of peri-implantitis. This study confirms that the IMI is an effective and predictable treatment modality in a Taiwan population. The identified risk factors for peri-implantitis of IMI included a history of periodontitis, poor oral hygiene, KM < 2 mm, and a follow-up period of > 8 years.
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.