Effectiveness and clinical performance of early implant placement for the replacement of single teeth in anterior areas: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To assess the effectiveness and clinical performance of early implant placement, 4-8 (Type 2) or 12-16 weeks (Type 3) after extraction, in single anterior sites. METHODS: Studies reporting on Type 2 and Type 3 implant placement were identified. Findings were summarized in evidence tables. Main outcome was implant survival. Peri-implant soft and hard tissues changes, periodontal parameters, aesthetics and patient-reported outcomes were also evaluated. Quality of reporting of the included studies was evaluated through Consort, Newcastle-Ottawa scale and IHE quality appraisal checklist. RESULTS: Nineteen eligible articles (seven from one RCT, three from two CCTs and nine from three case series) reporting on 140 patients and 140 implants were included. Type 3 implants showed comparable results to Type 4: 95% vs. 100% survival rates. Studies reported high values of implant survival, minimal technical and biological complications and high aesthetic scores in both short and long-term follow-ups for both Type 2 and Type 3 implant placement. Quality evaluation highlighted important weaknesses in the included trials. CONCLUSIONS: Limited data on Type 2 and Type 3 implant placement appear to indicate that they can perform well both short and long term. However, the limited number of cases, the significant heterogeneity of the included studies and the high risk of biases importantly reduce the generalizability of the findings. CRD42018117363.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".