ReviewJournal of maxillofacial and oral surgery2025
Treatment Planning for Single-Tooth Implant: A Clinical Guide and Literature Review.
Review in Journal of maxillofacial and oral surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Feature-Level Fusion-Based CNN-Transformer-KAN Hybrid Approach for Dental Implant Diameter and Length Detection.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
- Performance of ChatGPT in dental implant treatment planning: evaluation using the modified DISCERN, Global Quality Score, and accuracy-safety score.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Review
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
Background: Rehabilitation of a single missing tooth using a dental implant, although often considered less complex, presents unique clinical challenges and limitations. Central to successful outcomes is a prosthetically driven treatment approach, wherein the final crown position dictates the ideal implant placement within the alveolar bone. Treatment Considerations: Comprehensive treatment planning requires integrating findings from clinical, radiographic, and diagnostic evaluations to assess site suitability and anatomical constraints. Multiple factors influence implant planning, including soft tissue parameters such as gingival biotype, hard tissue factors like bone quality and quantity, proximity to anatomical structures, and the condition of adjacent and opposing dentition. Importantly, different regions of the oral cavity present distinct priorities: Esthetic demands dominate in the maxillary anterior region, whereas occlusal loads and biomechanical considerations are paramount in posterior sites. Recognizing the regional variability in planning criteria is essential for clinicians to ensure ideal implant positioning, long-term osseointegration, and esthetic success. Discussion: This review consolidates and organizes key factors that vary by anatomical region, offering a structured framework to support evidence-based decision-making in single-tooth implant rehabilitation. Additionally, we outline the commonly employed surgical protocols, highlighting how clinical and anatomical variables guide the selection of one-stage vs. two-stage placement, immediate vs. delayed loading, and other procedural variations. By emphasizing both universal principles and site-specific considerations, this article aims to serve as a practical guide for clinicians striving for predictable and patient-centered single-tooth implant 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.