Immediate Implant Placement in Non-Infected Sockets versus Infected Sockets: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Objectives The aim of this systematic review is to compare immediate implant placement in infected extraction sockets with non-infected extraction sockets in terms of implant survival and function. Material and Methods An electronic search was conducted in PubMed, ScienceDirect, ISI Web of Knowledge and Google Scholar between January 2010 and February 2020. Studies evaluating implant survival rate and main clinical parameters were included for a qualitative and quantitative analysis. Results In total, nine studies were included and a pool of 2281 sockets were analysed. Compared with the non-infected group, the infected group showed no significant differences in implant survival rates (risk ratio [RR] = 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.98 to 1; P = 0.08). No significant statistical differences were found in marginal bone level (mean difference [MD] = -0.03; 95% CI = -0.1 to 0.04; P = 0.41), marginal gingival level (MD = -0.07; 95% CI = -0.17 to 0.04; P = 0.23), probing depth (MD = 0.06; 95% CI = -0.24 to 0.36; P = 0.7), modified bleeding index (MD = -0.00162196; 95% CI = -0.09 to 0.09; P = 0.97) and slight but significant changes were seen in width of keratinized gingiva (MD = 0.25; 95% CI = -0.3 to 0.8; P = 0.38) between the groups at the latest follow-up. Conclusions There were no significant difference in implant survival rates, marginal bone level, marginal gingival level, modified bleeding index and probing depth between infected sockets and non-infected sockets. However, slight but significant changes were seen in width of keratinized gingiva favouring the non-infected group.

Does initial buccal crest thickness affect final buccal crest thickness after flapless immediate implant placement and provisionalization: A prospective cone beam computed tomogram cohort study

“…Such a gap leads to less crestal bone resorption and minimal midfacial soft-tissue recession. [23][24][25][26][27][28] This buccal gap even allows new bone formation, coronal to the receding buccal bone wall. [29][30][31] To achieve a minimal gap width of at least 2 mm the use of implants with a smaller diameter is advocated.…”

“…To create such a gap with optimal dimensions, new insights advocate to install the implant in a more palatal position, on condition of the presence of sufficient apical bone volume. Such a gap leads to less crestal bone resorption and minimal midfacial soft‐tissue recession 23–28 . This buccal gap even allows new bone formation, coronal to the receding buccal bone wall 29–31 .…”

Single‐rooted extraction socket classification: A systematic review and proposal of a new classification system based on morphologic and patient‐related factors

“…In a study by Urban et al, 44 it is indicated that smoking can be a risk factor for molar area IIP. Similarly, it is reported in the literature that despite its acceptable success rate, infectious ES needs adjunctive therapy and additional considerations if IIP is planned 39,45 . Also, it is elaborated throughout the studies that health‐related systemic conditions such as diabetes and hypertension could possibly affect the ES healing process and therefore, alter the expected outcomes 46,47 .…”

“…Presence of active periodontitis in the same sextant. Although data regarding detrimental impact of previous periodontitis on IIP is controversial 27,36,37 presence of active periodontitis within the same sextant could serve an additional risk for IIP 38,39 Evaluation of oral hygiene: poor oral hygiene may increase the failure and complications in IIP 5 …”

Immediate versus Delayed Implantation for Single-Tooth Restoration of Maxillary Anterior Teeth: A Comparative Analysis on Efficacy

“…However, this implant procedure will result in a protracted period of tooth loss, as well as keratinization of the gums and insufficient bone mass in the edentulous area due to alveolar bone absorption following tooth extraction, which will impact the aesthetic effect of implant repair [ 3 , 4 ]. With the advances in stomatology, immediate implantation (II) technology has attracted the attention of stomatologists at home and abroad, as it not only shortens the number of surgical interventions and simplifies the treatment procedures but also preserves the soft tissue capsule to achieve the best soft tissue aesthetics [ 5 , 6 ]. However, II is not omnipotent, and it will face challenges such as inadequate wound closure and insufficient soft tissue, which will greatly compromise the aesthetics of gingival formation of the implant in the aesthetic area [ 7 ].…”