Are success and survival rates of early implant placement higher than immediate implant placement?

Soydan, Sıdıka Sinem; Çubuk, Seçil; Oğuz, Yener; Uçkan, Sina

doi:10.1016/j.ijom.2012.10.014

Cited by 30 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The electronic and manual literature search identified a total of 2,518 articles with 2,399 of these citations excluded after titles and abstracts screening. The full‐text of the remaining 119 citations was reviewed, among which 12 articles met the inclusion criteria (Tables and ) . Five studies compared the early placement protocol with the immediate placement protocol, and four studies compared the early placement protocol with the delayed placement protocol .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The other studies had a retrospective or cross‐sectional design . The majority of studies were conducted solely in academic settings . Five studies were supported by non‐industry funding sources, and one study received support from industry in terms of materials .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One half of the studies included only implants that were placed in the maxilla, while the other half included implants placed in both jaws . Five studies included implants placed in the non‐molar sites, and two studies included only implants that were placed in the incisor and canine positions .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Outcome of early dental implant placement versus other dental implant placement protocols: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Bassir

Kholy

Chen

et al. 2018

Journal of Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The aim of this systematic review and meta‐analysis was to compare the clinical efficacy of the early dental implant placement protocol with immediate and delayed dental implant placement protocols. Methods An electronic and manual search of literature was made to identify clinical studies comparing early implant placement with immediate or delayed placement. Data from the included studies were pooled and quantitative analyses were performed for the implant outcomes reported as the number of failed implants (primary outcome variable) and for changes in peri‐implant marginal bone level, peri‐implant probing depth, and peri‐implant soft tissue level (secondary outcome variables). Results Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria. Significant difference in risk of implant failure was found neither between the early and immediate placement protocols (risk difference = −0.018; 95% confidence interval [CI] = −0.06, 0.025; P = 0.416) nor between early and delayed placement protocols (risk difference = −0.008; 95% CI = –0.044, 0.028; P = 0.670). Pooled data of changes in peri‐implant marginal bone level demonstrated significantly less marginal bone loss for implants placed using the early placement protocol compared with those placed in fresh extraction sockets (P = 0.001; weighted mean difference = −0.14 mm; 95% CI = −0.22, −0.05). No significant differences were found between the protocols for the other variables. Conclusions The available evidence supports the clinical efficacy of the early implant placement protocol. Present findings indicate that the early implant placement protocol results in implant outcomes similar to immediate and delayed placement protocols and a superior stability of peri‐implant hard tissue compared with immediate implant placement.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Outcome of early dental implant placement versus other dental implant placement protocols: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Bassir

Kholy

Chen

et al. 2018

Journal of Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The pressure and tension exerted on the bone by the implant will stop the process of decreasing bone trabeculation after the extraction of a tooth (4). Six months after tooth extraction, the amount of horizontal and vertical loss of the ridge was 3.8 mm and 1.24 mm, respectively (5). However, the use of an implant will decrease this bone loss.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Evaluation of Marginal Bone Level Changes in Delayed and Early Implant Placement

Khoshhal¹,

Vafaei²,

Poormoradi³

et al. 2016

Avicenna J Dent Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The aim of modern dentistry is to restore the patient's health with predictable techniques. Implant-supported prostheses can be used to restore the patient's function, comfort, esthetic, speech, oral health and the integrity of tooth with adjacent hard and soft tissues to some extent. Intraosseous implants can be placed using three different techniques, including the immediate, the early and delayed technique. Due to the longer healing period and formation of bone in the delayed technique, it is hypothesized that the marginal bone around the implants will undergo less resorption compared to the early technique. Objectives: The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the changes in the levels of marginal bone around implants placed using early and delayed implant placement techniques. Patients and Methods:In the present retrospective cohort study, 38 implants from the BEGO system were used. These implants were placed in 17 patients in 2 different groups. In group 1, 20 implants were placed early (1 -2 months after extraction), and in group 2, 18 implants were placed with a delay of more than 4 months after tooth extraction. The marginal bone level was measured on periapical radiographs taken using the parallel technique at three different intervals: at implant placement time, and 6 and 12 months after implant placement. The measurements were made using a digital caliper with an accuracy of 0.01 mm, and the data were analyzed using a repeated-measures ANOVA in association with Mauchly's sphericity test. The statistical significance was set a P < 0.05. Results:The mean distances between the crestal bone and the implant shoulder in group 1 were 1.01, 1.44, and 1.93 mm at the implant placement time, and at the 6 and 12-month postoperative intervals, respectively. In group 2, these distances were 1.35, 1.20, and 1.41 mm, respectively. There were no significant differences in the marginal bone resorption between the two groups (P > 0.05). Conclusions:The amount of crestal bone loss around the implants placed early was greater than that around the implants placed with a delay; however, the differences were not significant.

show abstract

“…By evaluating the time elapsed between tooth extraction and implant placement, the following classification was established related to the healing phase of the recipient zone associated with the therapy [10,19,21].…”

Section: Open Access Http://scidocorg/ijdosphp Types Of Deploymentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Main Considerations On The Implants In Previous Region: A Review

AL¹,

IJ²

2018

IJDOS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Are success and survival rates of early implant placement higher than immediate implant placement?

Cited by 30 publications

References 11 publications

Outcome of early dental implant placement versus other dental implant placement protocols: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Outcome of early dental implant placement versus other dental implant placement protocols: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Comparative Evaluation of Marginal Bone Level Changes in Delayed and Early Implant Placement

Main Considerations On The Implants In Previous Region: A Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About