Trial reportInternational journal of implant dentistry2026
Impact of soft-tissue management techniques on immediate implant placement: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in International journal of implant dentistry, 2026. 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
purposeIn immediate implant placement, both open and closed healing techniques are used, but their comparative esthetic and tissue stability outcomes remain under debate. This study aimed to evaluate and compare these two approaches to support clinical decision-making.
methodsIn this prospective, randomized controlled trial, 46 patients received a total of 48 implants, assigned to either an open healing group (n = 25) or a closed healing group (n = 23). Clinical and radiological assessments were conducted at three time points: T1 (pre-extraction), T2 (3 months post-op), and T3 (12 months post-op). The primary endpoint was the Pink Esthetic Score (PES), which assesses seven soft tissue parameters. Secondary endpoints included implant survival and volumetric tissue changes. PES was analyzed using a linear mixed-effects model.
resultsThe open healing group showed significantly higher PES outcomes compared to the closed healing group (mean difference: -1.49; 95% CI: [-2.36, -0.62]; p = 0.0014). A higher baseline PES was also significantly associated with better esthetic outcomes at follow-up (0.3638, 95% CI: [0.1890, 0.5386], p = 0.0002). Smoking had no significant effect. Volumetric analysis revealed soft tissue volume loss from T1 to T2, with partial recovery by T3. Although the open healing group showed slightly less volume loss, this was not statistically significant. No implant losses occurred in either group.
conclusionThe study demonstrated esthetic advantages of the open healing technique compared to the closed healing technique in immediate implant placement.
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.