ArticleJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences2025
Evaluation of Longevity in Immediate and Delayed Loading of Crowns in Single-Piece Implants: A Prospective Study.
Article in Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences, 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
Objective: To evaluate the longevity and clinical outcomes of crowns in single-piece implants under immediate and delayed loading protocols. Methods: A prospective study was conducted with 60 participants (30 per group) receiving single-piece implants. Patients were assigned to either the immediate loading group (crowns placed within 48 hours postimplantation) or the delayed loading group (crowns placed after three months). Success rates, peri-implant bone loss, and patient-reported outcomes were assessed over 24 months. Results: Both groups exhibited high success rates (immediate: 93.3%, delayed: 96.7%). Peri-implant bone loss was marginally higher in the immediate group (mean: 1.2 mm) compared to the delayed group (mean: 0.9 mm). Patient satisfaction scores were comparable between groups. Conclusion: Both loading protocols demonstrated favorable outcomes, with delayed loading showing slightly better bone preservation. Immediate loading may be considered a viable alternative with proper case selection.
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.