MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4407818271 · doi:10.1111/cid.70013

A Randomized Controlled Trial on the Timing of Soft Tissue Augmentation in Immediate Implant Placement: Soft Tissue Changes and Esthetic Outcome

2025· article· en· W4407818271 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Thibault Struys, Véronique Christiaens, Thomas De Bruyckere, Jeremy Pitman, Pieter‐Jan Van Hove, Jan Cosyn

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersOsteology FoundationStraumann Group
KeywordsSoft tissueMedicineDentistryImplantRandomized controlled trialAnterior maxillaMaxillaBuccal administrationSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: To assess the impact of the timing of soft tissue augmentation on soft tissue changes and esthetic outcome following single immediate implant placement (IIP) in the anterior maxilla. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with a failing tooth and intact buccal bone wall in the anterior maxilla (15-25) were enrolled in this RCT. Following single IIP and socket grafting, they were randomly allocated to the control group (immediate soft tissue augmentation performed in the same surgical procedure-ISTA) or the test group (delayed soft tissue augmentation performed 3 months later-DSTA). Implants were placed with a surgical guide and immediately restored with an implant-supported provisional crown. Changes in soft tissue dimensions were assessed by a blinded clinician using superimposed STL files taken prior to surgery and at 1-year follow-up. The esthetic outcome was rated by a blinded clinician and the patient at 1-year follow-up. The study adhered to the STA-COSM (Soft Tissue Augmentation-Core Outcome Set and Measurements for implant dentistry trials) guidelines. RESULTS: Twenty patients were randomized to each group (control: 16 females, 4 males, mean age 57.6; test: 9 females, 11 males, mean age 54.2). The mean change in buccal soft tissue profile was -0.251 and 0.083 mm for ISTA and DSTA, respectively. The mean difference of -0.318 mm in favor of DSTA was not significant (95% CI: -0.860 to 0.224, p = 0.241). Median midfacial recession was -0.200 and - 0.350 mm for ISTA and DSTA, respectively. The median difference of 0.200 mm in favor of ISTA was not significant (95% CI: -0.210 to 0.700, p = 0.311). Mesial and distal papillary recession, Pink Esthetic Score and patients' esthetic satisfaction failed to demonstrate a significant difference between the groups. CONCLUSION: In patients with an intact buccal bone wall, the timing of soft tissue augmentation following IIP had no significant impact on soft tissue changes and esthetic outcome. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05537545.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.128
GPT teacher head0.488
Teacher spread0.360 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research→Same topicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→