ArticleBioinformation2026
Comparative evaluation of immediate versus delayed loading in dental implants.
Article in Bioinformation, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The optimal timing of prosthetic loading for dental implants remains a clinical challenge, with ongoing debate regarding the long-term outcomes of immediate versus delayed loading protocols. Therefore, it is of interest to compare peri-implant outcomes, marginal bone level changes, and clinical survival rates between immediately loaded and delayed loaded dental implants over a 24-month period. Fifty implants placed in 60 patients were allocated into two groups: immediate loading (n = 25), restored within 48 hours, and delayed loading (n = 25), restored after 8-16 weeks following standardized surgical protocols. Implant survival, implant stability quotient (ISQ), peri-implant clinical parameters, marginal bone levels, complications, and patient-reported satisfaction were evaluated. While immediate loading demonstrated higher early patient satisfaction, both loading protocols showed comparable long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes, indicating that each approach is reliable when appropriate case selection is followed.
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.