{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021065675340768277, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007434944237918215, 'mean_word_length': 5.485943775100401, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 1, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Buccal bone thickness around single dental implants in the maxillary esthetic zone.

OBJECTIVE
To compare the thickness of buccal bone around single dental implants placed in the anterior maxilla (premolar to premolar) inserted with different placement protocols.


DATA SOURCES
An electronic search was conducted using MEDLINE (PubMed), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and EMBASE, from January 1980 to July 2015. Mean buccal bone thickness around single dental implants was measured and correlation with implant placement protocols, loading protocols, and augmentation method was assessed. A Q-test was used to access the homogeneity of levels of effect. A univariate meta-regression analysis was used for further investigation of the between-study heterogeneity. Two randomized clinical trials and 12 cohort studies were included for statistical analysis. The difference in buccal bone thickness for implants placed with different implant placement protocols (early vs immediate vs delayed) was not statistically significant (P > .05). Loading protocols (immediate vs delayed) also did not significantly influence the thickness of buccal bone. Descriptive analysis showed different buccal bone thickness for dental implants that received different bone grafting materials at the time of placement.


CONCLUSION
Different implant placement and loading protocols may not significantly affect the thickness of the buccal bone around single dental implants in the anterior maxilla. Different bone graft materials at the time of implant placement may have an effect on buccal bone thickness.