SynthesisMedicine2025
Comparative efficacy of immediate implant placement and alveolar ridge preservation after tooth extraction: A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Medicine, 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.
- Clinical and Esthetic Outcomes of Vestibular Socket Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Dentistry journal · 2026Review
- Comparative assessment of crestal bone level around non-hydrophilic and hydrophilic implants after immediate extraction: AnBioinformation · 2026Article
- Socket preservation and its impact on final prosthetic outcomes.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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe reduction in extraction socket volume resulting from spontaneous healing poses challenges for dental implant placement. This systematic review aims to evaluate and compare the multifaceted performance of immediate implant placement (IIP) and alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) in terms of changes in soft and hard tissues of the alveolar ridge, implant failure, postoperative complications, and patient-reported satisfaction following tooth extraction.
methodsAn electronic search was conducted utilizing the databases of MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting on the comparisons of IIP and ARP protocols. The primary outcome variables included marginal bone level (MBL), pink esthetic score (PES), and implant failure; secondary outcome variables included postoperative complications, horizontal width change, facial gingival margin change, and patient-reported satisfaction. The Cochrane RoB2 tool was used to assess the risk of bias in RCTs. Weighted or mean differences (MD), odds ratio (OR), and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. The protocol followed the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis statements and was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024503989).
resultsEleven RCTs were included, involving 353 patients in the IIP group and 348 patients in the ARP group. Regarding MBL, the IIP protocol demonstrated a significantly greater reduction in both non-molar (MD = -0.36 mm, 95% CI = -0.64 to 0.07]) and molar regions (MD = -0.41 mm, 95% CI = -0.49 to -0.32]) compared to ARP; however, no statistical differences were observed regarding PES (MD = -0.05, 95% CI = -0.52 to 0.43) or implant failure (OR = 2.09, 95% CI = 0.98 to 4.44). Furthermore, both groups achieved similar outcomes in terms of horizontal width change, facial gingival margin change, and patient-reported satisfaction (P > .05), except for a higher incidence of postoperative complications observed in the IIP group (p < 0.05).
conclusionWithin the limitations of this study, the IIP protocol can achieve comparable esthetic outcomes and implant success as the ARP protocol; however, there may be a higher incidence of postoperative complications and MBL alterations. Further long-term and well-conducted RCTs are warranted to validate the efficacy of these protocols.
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.