SynthesisInternational dental journal2026
Pre-extractive Versus Postextractive Implant Site Preparation for Immediate Implant Placement in Mandibular Molar Sites: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in International dental journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare outcomes of pre-extractive to postextractive site preparation for immediate implant placement in mandibular molar sites in terms of implant stability, changes in marginal bone levels, implant position and implant failure rate. Following PRISMA and Cochrane guidelines, this review included randomised controlled trials comparing pre-extractive and postextractive implant site preparation in mandibular molars. Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE and ClinicalTrials.gov. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment were performed independently by 2 reviewers. Meta-analysis used a random-effects model, and evidence of certainty was evaluated using GRADE. A total of 120 studies were initially identified, of which 4 studies, involving 82 dental implants in 82 participants, were included. The overall meta-analysis showed that the pre-extractive approach resulted in significantly higher implant stability quotient (ISQ) values at the time of implant placement (mean difference (MD) -3.39; 95% confidence interval (CI) -4.20 to -2.59; P < .0001) and less deviation from the central implant position (relative risk (RR) 0.05; 95% CI 0.01-0.33; P = .002) compared to the postextractive approach. Anatomically guided pre-extractive implant site preparation may improve primary implant stability and optimise implant position compared to conventional surgical approaches. Pre-extractive site preparation may improve implant stability and positioning in mandibular molar sites, but the low certainty of evidence warrants cautious interpretation.
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.