SynthesisBMC oral health2025
Anatomic considerations for immediate implant placement in the mandibular posterior region -A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- CBCT-based submandibular fossa depth classification and panoramic fractal dimension analysis in the posterior mandible.Scientific reports · 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
objectivesTo review anatomical considerations for immediate implant placement in the mandibular posterior region using Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT). MATERIALS AND
methodsA systematic electronic literature search was conducted independently by two reviewers across PubMed, Web of Science, ProQuest, Scopus and Cochrane databases, supplemented by a manual search, to identify eligible clinical studies published from 2006 up to October 2024. Studies evaluating anatomical parameters relevant to implant placement were included.
resultsFrom 1,151 records,12 studies met the inclusion criteria, involving 1,834 patients who received immediate implants in the mandibular posterior region. The meta-analysis showed that the mean distance between the root apex and the inferior alveolar canal was 5.14 mm for premolars, 6.32 mm for first molars, and 4.65 mm for second molars. Undercut ridge morphology was most prevalent at the second molar site (73%), posing a higher risk for lingual plate perforation.
conclusionsImmediate implant placement in the mandibular posterior region requires careful anatomical assessment, with particular attention to the distance from the inferior alveolar canal and the potential risk of lingual plate perforation, to optimize treatment 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.