Trial reportClinical implant dentistry and related research2026
Immediate Loading on Tapered Versus Straight Multiple Implants: A 3-Year Follow-Up of a Randomized Clinical Trial.
Trial report in Clinical implant dentistry and related research, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the clinical and radiographic outcomes at 3 years following immediate loading of tapered implants (TI) versus straight implants (SI) from a randomized controlled trial (RCT). MATERIALS AND
methodsOf the 41 patients who received 93 implants in the original RCT (TI group: 23 patients, 50 implants; SI group: 18 patients, 43 implants), those who completed 3-year follow-up were included in this analysis. Implant survival and success rates, as well as changes in marginal bone loss (MBL), were assessed and compared using Kaplan-Meier curves, Cox proportional hazards models, and linear mixed-effects models.
resultsA total of 28 patients with 61 implants were evaluated (TI group: 15 patients, 32 implants; SI group: 13 patients, 29 implants). At 3 years post-immediate loading, cumulative survival rates at the patient level were 95.8% for the TI group and 78.3% for the SI group (intergroup p = 0.109). At the implant level, survival rates were 96.2% for TI and 90.0% for SI (intergroup p = 0.351). All implant failures occurred within the first year (1 implant in TI; 5 implants in SI), and no further losses were recorded thereafter. However, two TI implants in a single patient exhibited progressive peri-implantitis during follow-up. Mean MBL values were 0.61 ± 1.70 mm for the TI group and 0.53 ± 0.53 mm for the SI group, with no statistically significant differences between groups (intergroup p = 0.428).
conclusionIt could be cautiously concluded that the TI rather than the SI might be a more predictable option in terms of achieving an optimized initial stability for immediate loading in the posterior region. Once osseointegration was successfully achieved, however, the macro-design of the implant might not have an influence on the clinical and radiographic outcomes including the osseointegrated state during the 3 years of observational period. TRAIL REGISTRATION: KCT0002489; https://cris.nih.go.kr/cris/search/detailSearch.do?search_lang=E&focus=reset_12&search_page=L&pageSize=10&page=undefined&seq=19032&status=5&seq_group=8332.
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.