A Systematic Review of Outcomes Following Immediate Molar Implant Placement Based on Recently Published Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Immediate implant placement in molar extraction sites has become a treatment option for experienced clinicians. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to provide a systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes from recent clinical studies with immediate molar implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review was undertaken of relevant literature published from November 2008 to May 2015. Data collected included implant survival rates after at least 1 year in function, cumulative crestal bone loss, and implant location (maxilla vs mandible) and diameter. Implant diameters were grouped as "wide" (4-6 mm) or "ultra-wide" (>6-9 mm). Survival and bone loss with 95% CIs were calculated using a random effects model. Meta-analysis techniques were used to compare survival rates and cumulative mean bone loss between immediate and delayed placement implants. Survival rates also were computed and compared between wide and ultra-wide implants using chi-square testing. The quality of each study was assessed using established criteria. RESULTS: The literature search provided 15 papers published between November 2008 and May 2015 that satisfied the inclusion criteria. Data on survival were found for a total of 768 immediate molar implants inserted in 757 patients. Meta-analysis of these data showed an implant survival rate of 98% with no difference between maxilla and mandible. Five studies included delayed molar implants as controls, and no significant differences were detected. A significant difference (p = .048) was found in relation to implant diameter with implant failures being higher (3.67 vs 1.45%) for ultra-wide (>6-9 mm) versus wide (4-6 mm) implants. The majority of the 15 studies were determined to be either "average" (prospective case series) or "fair" (retrospective) in quality. CONCLUSION: While there are still no published reports from double-blind, randomized, controlled (best quality) clinical trials of immediate molar implant placement, high survival rates have been reported. The present data, however, suggests that there may be an optimal diameter for this implant application. Meta-analysis of the limited bone loss data reported estimated the overall mean cumulative bone loss after at least 1 year to be 0.57 mm.
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 | 0.015 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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".