ArticleFrontiers in dental medicine2026
A prospective randomized split-mouth trial comparing immediate versus early anterior implant placement with customized healing abutments: 12-month marginal bone loss, stability, and esthetic outcome.
Article in Frontiers in dental 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
Objectives: To compare 12-month marginal bone loss (MBL) between immediate implant placement (IIP) and early implant placement (EIP) in the anterior region. Secondary objectives included the evaluation of implant stability (ISQ), esthetic outcomes (PES-WES), and peri-implant health (probing depth and bleeding index) when using customized healing abutments. Methods: A prospective, randomized, split-mouth clinical trial was conducted involving 12 patients, with a total of 24 implant sites. The protocol was approved by the institutional review board (IRB2023-H0113D-P-0494), registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT0698551). Each patient received one IIP and one contralateral EIP via fully guided surgery. Chairside-fabricated customized healing abutments were utilized, and definitive restorations were delivered at 3 months. Outcomes were recorded at 3, 6, and 12 months. MBL was assessed via standardized CBCT, implant stability via resonance-frequency analysis, and esthetics through Pink/White Esthetic Scores. Mixed-effects models were used for statistical analysis ( Results: IIP demonstrated significantly lower early MBL at 3 months (mean difference: -0.30 mm, 95% CI: -0.52 to -0.08; Conclusions: When combined with guided protocols and customized healing abutments, IIP and EIP yield comparable 12-month marginal bone outcomes. IIP provides an advantage in accelerated early stability and superior soft-tissue esthetic scores (PES) compared to EIP. The clinically meaningful esthetic advantages of IIP support its preferential use in the anterior zone when anatomical conditions permit.
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.