The Clinical Outcomes of Immediate Versus Delayed Restoration Procedures on Immediate Implants: A Comparative Cohort Study for Single‐Tooth Replacement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Immediate implant placement into fresh extraction sockets is generally considered a reliable procedure that offers several clinical advantages. PURPOSE: The primary aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the overall clinical outcomes of immediate and delayed restoration procedures for implants placed in fresh extraction sockets by means of a flapless technique and resorbable membrane stabilizing a xenograft. Total costs and operating times were also compared. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, changes of marginal bone level, facial soft tissue (ΔFST), and width of keratinized gingiva (ΔWKG), in addition to the papilla index, underwent a pairwise comparison; correlations with pristine buccal bone thickness were also investigated. RESULTS: Although similar results were recorded for the two procedures, with a bone loss of -1.0 ± 0.5 mm and -0.9 ± 0.7 mm, respectively, for immediate and delayed restoration, negative remodeling in the delayed restoration procedure was seen to occur from 4 to 12 months after implant placement. No significant differences were recorded between the two procedures in terms of ΔFST and ΔWKG. A loss of the papillary soft tissues before restoration, followed by a reestablishment after restoration, seemed to be verified for the delayed group, for which the papilla index went from the minimum of 0 at 4 months to a value of 2 at 24 months. Moreover, the immediate restoration procedure seemed to be more promising in terms of healing times and costs. CONCLUSION: Immediate restoration of implants installed in fresh extraction sockets was at least as effective and safe as delayed restoration.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".