ArticleCureus2025
Comparative Assessment of Clinical Outcomes in Flapless and Flapped Implant Surgical Techniques: A Prospective Cohort Study.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Survival and Bone Remodeling in Hybrid Surface Dental Implants Placed with 3 Surgical Protocols up to 5 Years: A Retrospective Practice-Based Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Comparison of flapless versus conventional flap implant placement on soft tissue health and prosthodontic outcomes.Bioinformation · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDental implants have become the standard treatment for restoring missing teeth, offering both functional and esthetic benefits. The surgical approach (flap versus flapless) may influence peri-implant tissue healing, postoperative discomfort, and long-term implant success. This study aimed to compare postoperative pain, peri-implant probing depth (PD), and crestal bone height (CBH) changes between the flapless and flapped implant placement over a 12-month period post functional loading of implants. MATERIALS AND
methodsA prospective cohort study was conducted with 20 patients who required single posterior dental implants. Patients were allocated into two groups: flapless (n = 10) and flap (n = 10). The allocation was based on clinical evaluation and patient preferences. Soft tissue assessment included PD measurements at six and 12 months at the four peri-implant sites using a periodontal probe. Hard tissue assessment included CBH measurements at baseline, six months, and 12 months post functional loading using standardized intraoral radiographs. Pain intensity was evaluated on postoperative days 3 and 7 using the visual analog scale (VAS). All data were analyzed using appropriate parametric and non-parametric tests, with significance set at p < 0.05.
resultsPostoperative pain was significantly lower in the flapless group compared to the flap group at both day 3 (3.1 ± 0.74 vs. 5.7 ± 0.95, p = 0.001) and day 7 (0.5 ± 0.71 vs. 2.4 ± 1.17, p = 0.001). PD was significantly lower in the flapless group at six months (p < 0.05), although by 12 months, the differences between the groups were not statistically significant. Both groups showed significant intragroup reductions in PD over time (p = 0.001). The CBH decreased slightly in both groups over 12 months, but no significant intergroup differences were observed at any time point (p > 0.05).
conclusionFlapless implant placement was associated with significantly lower postoperative pain and more favorable soft tissue healing with reduced PD at six months than the flap technique. However, both approaches demonstrated comparable changes in CBH at 12 months. These findings suggest that flapless surgery may offer early postoperative benefits without compromising long-term hard tissue stability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.