ArticleMedicine2026
The success rate and aesthetic outcomes of immediate anterior implant placement based on primary stability: A retrospective study.
Article in Medicine, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Immediate and delayed implant placements are common strategies for restoring single-tooth anterior maxillary defects. This study compared the clinical outcomes of immediate versus delayed implant placements, focusing on the impact of primary stability on success rates and aesthetic results. This retrospective cohort study included 120 patients who underwent implant restoration for a single missing maxillary anterior tooth (incisor or canine), comprising the observation group (immediate implant placement group, n = 60) and the control group (delayed implant placement group, n = 60). All patients were examined at the time of implant insertion and 12 months post-implantation. The primary outcomes assessed included insertion torque values (ITVs), initial stability quotient (ISQ), marginal bone loss, Pink Esthetic Score, patient satisfaction, and adverse events. The observation group had significantly lower primary stability at implant placement than the control group (primary ITV, P = .003; primary ISQ, P < .001), whereas no significant between-group difference was observed at 12 months (final ITV, P = .588; final ISQ, P = .589). The immediate implant placement group showed less marginal bone loss (0.48 mm vs 0.85 mm; P < .001) and a higher Pink Esthetic Score (11.47 vs 10.05; P < .001). Patient satisfaction with aesthetics (P = .004), subjective perception of treatment duration (P < .001), and the number of surgical procedures (P < .001) were higher in the observation group. Overall success rates were similar (98.33% vs 96.67%). Immediate implant placement in the maxillary anterior region can achieve long-term stability similar to that of delayed implant placement, provided that adequate primary stability is achieved. They also offer advantages in soft-tissue aesthetics and patient satisfaction, making them a reliable and patient-friendly option.
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.