Buccal bone dimensional changes at immediate implant sites in the maxillary esthetic zone within a 4–12‐month follow‐up period: A systematic review and m<scp>eta‐analysis</scp>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the changes in buccal bone dimensions (CBD) following immediate implant placement in the maxillary esthetic zone and to identify the factors influencing the degree of buccal bone resorption for different placement and restoration protocols. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An electronic search was conducted using the EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and MEDLINE (PubMed) databases, combined with a manual and gray literature search, up to January 2021. Selected clinical studies had to report the changes in horizontal buccal bone dimension in maxillary immediate implantation sites (premolar to premolar) at baseline and at follow-up visits within a year of implantation. A meta-analysis was conducted to calculate the mean value of the changes in horizontal and vertical buccal bone dimensions (CHBD and CVBD) around implants. To further investigate the heterogeneity and identify factors associated with buccal bone loss after immediate implant placement, subgroup analysis and univariate meta-regression were performed. RESULTS: From a total of 3498 articles, 4 randomized controlled trials and 12 nonrandomized controlled trials were included for analysis. The mean survival rate of 568 implants was 99.6%. The mean CHBD and CVBD values were 0.71 mm (95% confidence interval: [0.56, 0.86]) and 0.58 mm (95% confidence interval: [0.43, 0.72]), respectively. For possible factors that related to bone resorption, including buccal bone thickness, flap design, bone grafting, horizontal defect dimension, and restoration protocol, bone grafting was the only variable that significantly influenced CHBD. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that immediate implant placement in the esthetic zone does not prevent buccal bone from resorption. Due to data heterogeneity and the small sample size of the studies included in the analysis, further well-conducted, randomized controlled trials with homogeneous samples are required to investigate the correlation of CBD with different variables.
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 | 0.011 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.021 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".