SynthesisBMC oral health2025
Clinical and radiologic outcomes of dental implants in cemento-osseous dysplasia: a systematic review and retrospective case series.
Synthesis in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Failure rate and treatment plan options of dental implants in patients with fibro-osseous lesions: a systematic review.Maxillofacial plastic and reconstructive surgery · 2026Review
- Successful dental implant rehabilitation in a posterior mandibular site affected by florid cemento-osseous dysplasia: A case report.Journal of advanced periodontology & implant dentistry · 2026Article
- Performance of ChatGPT in dental implant treatment planning: evaluation using the modified DISCERN, Global Quality Score, and accuracy-safety score.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Why was the concordance rate of imaging and clinical diagnosis in cemento-osseous dysplasia low? A retrospective study of 55 cases.BMC oral health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo systematically evaluate the clinical and radiologic outcomes of dental implants in cementoosseous dysplasia (COD)-affected regions, identify factors associated with implant success or failure, and propose evidence-based management recommendations. MATERIALS AND
methodsEMBASE (Ovid), PubMed, Scopus, CNKI, and SinoMed databases were searched for eligible studies (up to March 2025). Studies reporting dental implants placed in COD-affected regions with ≥ three months' follow-up were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the JBI critical appraisal checklist for case reports. To complement the systematic review, retrospective institutional cases were included. Pooled analysis examined associations between implant outcomes and COD type, lesion stage, and implant-to-lesion spatial relationship.
resultsSeventeen implants from eleven published studies and twelve implants from six institutional cases were analyzed (N = 29). The overall implant success rate was 79.3% (median follow-up: 25 months). All failures occurred in florid COD (FLCOD); focal COD (FCOD) cases achieved 100% success. Stage III lesions showed higher success (87.5%) than stage II lesions (40%). Implants with no or minimal lesion contact had 100% success, while those embedded in lesions had a 46.15% failure rate.
conclusionDental implants demonstrated high success rates in FCOD and Stage III COD lesions, particularly when direct embedding within the dysplastic bone was avoided, underscoring the importance of careful case selection, strategic implant positioning, and rigorous postoperative management. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.