Trial reportOral health & preventive dentistry2026
Impact of Immediate vs Delayed Dental Implants on Survival, Patient Satisfaction, and Quality of Life.
Trial report in Oral health & preventive dentistry, 2026. 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.
- Immediate and Delayed Implant Placement Protocols: A Comparative Case-Based Perspective.Cureus · 2026Article
- Comparative assessment of crestal bone level around non-hydrophilic and hydrophilic implants after immediate extraction: AnBioinformation · 2026Article
- Esthetic evaluation of immediate implants in the maxillary anterior region.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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis randomised controlled trial investigated whether immediate placement confers any advantage over delayed placement with respect to implant survival (primary outcome), peri-implant health, patient-reported satisfaction (VAS) and oral-health-related quality of life (OHIP-14). METHODS AND MATERIALS: This study included 220 patients with missing teeth, randomly divided into a control group (n = 110) and an observation group (n = 110) using a random number table (block = 10, concealed allocation). Baseline variables (age, sex, BMI, tooth site, aetiology and oral hygiene habits) showed no statistically significant between-group differences (all P > 0.05). The control group received delayed implants, while the observation group received immediate implants. Outcomes measured included implant survival rate, periodontal indexes (PD, mPLI, mSBI), aesthetic evaluation (PES, WES), quality of life (OHIP-14), and patient satisfaction (VAS). Attachment level in the satisfaction assessment refers to the perceived gingival margin position relative to the restoration, evaluated subjectively by patients using a visual analogue scale rather than clinical probing measurements.
resultsAt 1 year, implant survival rates were 95.45% (105/110) in the immediate group versus 92.73% (102/110) in the delayed group, with no statistically significant difference (χ2 = 0.736, P = 0.391). The observation group demonstrated significantly lower mean values compared to the control group for PD (3.16 ± 0.51 mm vs 3.39 ± 0.59 mm), mPLI (0.95 ± 0.38 vs 1.21 ± 0.54), and mSBI (0.85 ± 0.47 vs 1.01 ± 0.35) (all P 0.05). The PES total scores were significantly higher in the observation group than the control group (12.18 ± 1.13 vs 11.34 ± 1.30, P 0.001), as were WES total scores (7.78 ± 0.99 vs 7.23 ± 1.10, P 0.001). After 1 year of implantation, OHIP-14 total scores in the observation group were significantly lower than those in the control group (3.20 ± 1.33 vs 4.15 ± 1.23, P 0.001). The satisfaction scores for Attachment Level (8.12 ± 1.05 vs 7.45 ± 1.18), Colour (8.67 ± 0.89 vs 8.15 ± 1.12), and Chewing Function (8.89 ± 0.94 vs 8.23 ± 1.08) were significantly higher in the observation group than in the control group (all P 0.05).
conclusionBased on the primary outcome of 1-year implant survival, there was no significant difference between immediate and delayed implantation. However, immediate implantation demonstrated superior secondary outcomes, including periodontal-related indexes, aesthetic effects, quality of life, and patient satisfaction. These findings suggest that immediate implantation may offer clinical advantages in early functional and aesthetic outcomes without compromising implant survival, providing patients with reduced treatment duration and improved peri-implant tissue preservation.
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.