ReviewCureus2025
The Clinical Impact of Dental Implant Placement in Close Proximity to Natural Teeth: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The spatial relationship between dental implants and adjacent natural teeth is critical for maintaining peri-implant health and avoiding iatrogenic complications. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the biological and structural effects of implant placement within 1.5 mm of natural tooth roots or in direct contact with them. Electronic searches were performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar, and Semantic Scholar databases from inception to January 2025, following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 guidelines (PROSPERO ID CRD42024499790). Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising eight observational studies and three case series, representing 1,727 participants and over 2,000 implants. Pulpal and periapical pathology were the most frequently reported adverse outcomes, with 20%-25% of affected teeth requiring root canal therapy in proximity-contact cases. Marginal bone resorption and peri-implantitis were observed in up to 4% of implants placed less than 1 mm from adjacent roots. Secondary caries and cervical structural defects were reported less consistently but were more prevalent in posterior regions. Meta-analysis using a random-effects model yielded a pooled effect size of 0.11 (95% confidence interval: 0.03-0.22), indicating a low yet clinically relevant risk of proximity-related complications, with an overall implant survival exceeding 95%. The certainty of evidence was moderate for pulpal and bone outcomes and low for caries or structural changes. Within the limitations of the available data, implants placed closer than 1.5 mm to natural teeth may cause localized biological damage without significantly compromising implant longevity. Meticulous presurgical planning and guided placement are essential to prevent avoidable injury.
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.