ArticleBMC oral health2026
Virtual and clinical implant placement after ridge preservation in periodontally compromised molars: retrospective study.
Article in BMC oral health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsThe purpose of this study is to assess the possibility and needs for bone augmentation in virtual planning and clinical treatment of prosthetically guided dental implants (PGI) following alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) in periodontally compromised molar extraction sites and to analyze the influencing factors. MATERIALS AND
methodsOne hundred forty three subjects with 191 molars were included. Radiographic data assessed baseline ridge height and width in variable sites. Virtual implant planning with 4.1/4.8 mm diameter, 8/10 mm length implants was performed using CBCT. The feasibility of simple implant placement and the need for augmentation during implant therapy were assessed. According to the medical records, the implant therapy modalities for sites that received dental implant treatment were also counted.
resultsResults of virtual implant planning showed that a few sites (6.81%) required staged augmentation for 4.1 × 8 mm and 4.8 × 8 mm implants, while 59.16% and 45.55% of the sites were possible for simple implant placement, respectively. For all cases clinically treated with implant therapy, 76.1% received simple implant placement, and 3.15% received staged augmentation. Implant treatment modalities were most influenced by location (maxillary/mandible) and the baseline buccal and lingual/palatal bone defects.
conclusionsPGI placement is possible in periodontally compromised molars following ARP, and only a few sites require complicated augmentation procedures. Location and baseline buccal and lingual/palatal bone defects are the influencing factors for implant treatment planning.
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.