ArticleCureus2026
Immediate and Delayed Implant Placement Protocols: A Comparative Case-Based Perspective.
Article in Cureus, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Dental implants have become a predictable and widely accepted treatment modality for replacing missing teeth, offering functional and esthetic rehabilitation. Advancements in implant design and surgical protocols have enabled clinicians to adopt various placement and loading strategies that are tailored to individual clinical scenarios. The selection of an appropriate protocol is critical for optimizing the treatment outcomes. This report describes two clinical scenarios involving a 55-year-old female patient who required mandibular first molar replacements. In the first scenario, the tooth was extracted atraumatically, followed by immediate implant placement; loading was deferred until after a six-month healing period. In the second scenario, implant placement was postponed for six months post-extraction, after which immediate nonfunctional loading was carried out within 48 hours. Standardized surgical protocols were followed in both cases to ensure adequate primary stability and preservation of the surrounding tissues. Clinical and radiographic evaluations revealed successful osseointegration, stable peri-implant soft tissues, and minimal marginal bone loss using both approaches. No complications, such as infection, mobility, or peri-implant inflammation, were observed during follow-up. Within the limitations of this report, immediate implant placement with delayed loading and delayed implant placement with immediate nonfunctional loading demonstrated predictable and favorable outcomes when appropriate case selection and clinical protocols were 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.