ArticleMedicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal2026
Immediate implant placement in infected extraction sockets: A scoping review of case selection, decontamination protocols, clinical outcomes and complications.
Article in Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis scoping review aimed to map the extent and nature of the evidence on immediate implant placement in infected extraction sockets, with emphasis on case selection, decontamination protocols, adjunctive interventions, clinical outcomes, and complications. MATERIAL AND
methodsThis review was conducted in accordance with Joanna Briggs Institute guidance for scoping reviews and reported following PRISMA-ScR. Searches were performed in Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection, PubMed/MEDLINE, LILACS via BVS, SciELO, and ClinicalTrials.gov up to 17 March 2026. After removal of duplicates, 72 records were screened independently by two reviewers, and 24 clinical studies published between 2015 and 2025 met the inclusion criteria.
resultsThe included evidence comprised case reports, case series, retrospective studies, prospective cohort studies, one split-mouth study, and one randomized trial. Most studies evaluated infected sockets associated with endodontic or periapical lesions, whereas periodontal and mixed lesions were less frequently addressed. Across studies, atraumatic extraction, meticulous socket debridement, and achievement of primary stability were consistently reported as key procedural steps. Adjunctive measures included systemic antibiotics, chlorhexidine decontamination, bone grafts, barrier membranes, platelet concentrates, laser therapy, vestibular socket techniques, and immediate provisionalization. Although most studies reported favorable implant survival, marginal bone stability, and esthetic outcomes, the evidence was heterogeneous, largely observational, and frequently non-comparative.
conclusionsThe available evidence suggests that immediate implant placement in infected extraction sockets may be feasible in carefully selected cases when meticulous debridement and adequate primary stability are achieved. However, due to the heterogeneity, limited comparative evidence, and variability in infection definitions and treatment protocols, no standardized clinical protocol can currently be recommended. Further well-designed comparative studies with standardized reporting are needed.
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.