Immediate implant placement into fresh extraction sockets versus delayed implants into healed sockets: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Mello, Caroline Cantieri de; Lemos, Caa; Verri, Fellippo Ramos; Dm, Santos; Pellizzer, Eduardo Piza

doi:10.1016/j.ijom.2017.03.016

Cited by 81 publications

(104 citation statements)

References 64 publications

(214 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Both report on single as well as multiple implants and found significantly lower implant survival following IIP. However, as stated by the authors, these findings should be interpreted with caution given a high risk of bias in terms of randomization, allocation and blinding (Mello et al., ). In addition, only implant survival, marginal bone loss and probing depth changes were evaluated.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 90%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The effectiveness of immediate implant placement for single tooth replacement compared to delayed implant placement: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Cosyn

Lat

Seyssens

et al. 2019

J Clinic Periodontology

106

124

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim To compare immediate implant placement (IIP) to delayed single implant placement (DIP, ≥3 months post‐extraction) in terms of implant survival (primary outcome), surgical, clinical, aesthetic, radiographic and patient‐reported outcomes (secondary outcomes). Materials and Methods Two reviewers independently performed an electronic search in PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE and Cochrane and a hand search to identify eligible studies up to May 2018. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non‐randomized controlled studies (NRSs) comparing IIP to DIP with at least 1 year of follow‐up were selected for a qualitative analysis and meta‐analysis. Results The search identified 3 RCTs and 5 NRSs out of 2,589 titles providing data on 473 single implants (IIP: 233, DIP: 240) that had been in function between 12 and 96 months. One RCT showed unclear risk of bias, whereas all other studies demonstrated high risk. Meta‐analysis showed significantly lower implant survival for IIP (94.9%) as compared to DIP (98.9%) (RR 0.96, 95% CI [0.93; 0.99], p = 0.02). All were early implant failures. A subgroup meta‐analysis demonstrated a trend towards lower implant survival for IIP when postoperative antibiotics had not been administered (RR: 0.93, 95% CI [0.86; 1.00], p = 0.07). This was not observed among studies including the administration of postoperative antibiotics (RR: 0.98, 95% CI [0.94; 1.02], p = 0.35). Meta‐analyses showed similar probing depth (WMD 0.43 mm, 95% CI [−0.47; 1.33], p = 0.35) and aesthetic outcomes as assessed by the pink aesthetic score (standardized WMD −0.03, 95% CI [−0.46; 0.39], p = 0.88) for IIP and DIP. Data on marginal bone loss were conflicting and highly biased. Soft tissue recession was underreported and available data were highly biased. Patient‐reported outcomes were underreported, yet both IIP and DIP seemed well tolerated. Conclusion Immediate implant placement demonstrated higher risk for early implant loss than DIP. There is a need for RCTs comparing IIP to DIP with CBCT analyses at different time points and data on midfacial recession with the preoperative status as baseline. In these studies, the need for hard and soft tissue grafting should also be evaluated.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…Two recent systematic reviews have been published on the comparison of IIP in fresh extraction sockets with DIP in healed bone (Chrcanovic, Albrektsson, & Wennerberg, ; Mello et al., ). Both report on single as well as multiple implants and found significantly lower implant survival following IIP.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effectiveness of immediate implant placement for single tooth replacement compared to delayed implant placement: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Cosyn

Lat

Seyssens

et al. 2019

J Clinic Periodontology

106

124

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This result is also in line with those obtained in recent systematic reviews of immediate and earlyplaced implants mainly on alveoli with intact buccal plate, achieving successful values (between 94% and 98%) in spite of the different methodology applied. (Bassir et al, 2018;Chen et al, 2018;Cosyn et al, 2019;Mello et al, 2017;Weigl & Strangio, 2016).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Traditionally, immediate implant placement after flap dental extraction with healing abutment and soft-tissue displacement in order to achieve a primary closure has been associated with a greater recession of soft tissues, supporting a restricted use of this technique for aesthetical reasons in the anterior sector (Hammerle, Araujo, Simion, & Osteology Consensus, 2012). However, these approaches have changed with time-in spite of the negative results of some studies on flap immediate implants in the anterior sector (Tonetti et al, 2017)-as it appears in systematic reviews showing very similar results with immediate, early or delayed implants (Bassir, El Kholy, Chen, Lee, & Intini, 2018;Cosyn et al, 2019;Mello et al, 2017;Weigl & Strangio, 2016). This also applies to infected sockets at extraction due to periodontal or pulp conditions (Chen, Zhang, Weigl, & Gu, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Flapless immediate implant placement and provisionalization in periodontal patients: A retrospective consecutive case‐series study of single‐tooth sites with dehiscence‐type osseous defects

Sicilia‐Felechosa

Pereira‐Fernández

García‐Lareu

et al. 2020

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To assess the clinical outcomes of flapless, immediate implant placement with simultaneous augmentation of dehiscence defects and immediate provisional restoration. Materials and Methods Retrospective evaluation of 40 periodontal patients who received a flapless immediate implant for single‐tooth replacement with simultaneous augmentation of dehiscence defects and immediate provisional restoration, at follow‐up periods ranging from 1 year minimum to 7 years maximum. Dehiscence defects were augmented using autogenous bone grafts and/or deproteinized bovine bone mineral, and autogenous or allogeneic connective tissue grafts. The following aspects were evaluated: clinical success (Clinical Oral Implants Research, 8, 1997, 161), crestal bone loss (calibrated digital periapical X‐rays) and aesthetics (Pink Esthetic Score, PES). Additionally, a questionnaire was devised to obtain patient's subjective evaluation. Results A 98.3% (95% CI: 91%–99%) success rate was observed. At 8 weeks, mean bone loss was 0.47 mm (n = 39); between 8 weeks and 1 year, this va lue attained 0.24 mm and between years 1 and 5 years 0.06 mm (n = 9). The evaluated PES in 37 single‐tooth implants was 12.4, with PES = 7 (aesthetic failures) in two cases, and aesthetic outcomes were excellent (PES ≥ 12) in 29 cases (78.4%). When compared with the contralateral tooth, a recession under 1 mm was observed in 78% of cases. The patient's subjective satisfaction value ranged from 98% to 100%. Conclusion This type of minimally invasive treatment of alveoli with buccal plate deficiencies delivers, in the hands of an experienced clinician, a high clinical and aesthetic success percentage being rated by patients as satisfactory. Clinicians should be aware that 1–2 mm comparative recession could be observed.

show abstract

“…In healthy patients, a systematic review showed that implants placed immediately after tooth extraction are accompanied by a survival rate comparable to implants placement in healed sites [23,24]. Even though there are studies claiming that immediate implant placement leads to a decrease in survival rates [25], the use of immediate implant therapy in specific populations, as in this study, requires consideration because of the potential benefits like a decrease in prosthetic rehabilitation time and fewer surgical procedures, to be gained from the therapy. In addition, dental loss has a negative impact on patients' quality of life which further emphasizes the importance of adequate dental rehabilitation [26][27][28].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mandibular dental implant placement immediately after teeth removal in head and neck cancer patients

Alberga

Korfage

Bonnema

et al. 2020

Support Care Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Little is known about immediate implant placement in head and neck cancer patients. We studied implant survival and functional outcomes of overdentures fabricated on implants placed immediately after removal of the lower dentition during ablative surgery or preceding primary radiotherapy (RT). Methods Inclusion criteria were primary head and neck cancer, dentate lower jaw, and indication for removal of remaining teeth. Two implants to support a mandibular overdenture were placed immediately after extraction of the dentition during ablative surgery, or prior to starting primary radiotherapy. Standardized questionnaires and clinical assessments were conducted (median follow-up 18.5 months, IQR 13.3).Results Fifty-eight implants were placed in 29 patients. Four implants were lost (implant survival rate 93.1%). In 9 patients, no functional overdenture could be made. All patients were satisfied with their dentures. Conclusions Combining dental implant placement with removal of remaining teeth preceding head neck oncology treatment results in a favorable treatment outcome.

show abstract

Immediate implant placement into fresh extraction sockets versus delayed implants into healed sockets: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Cited by 81 publications

References 64 publications

The effectiveness of immediate implant placement for single tooth replacement compared to delayed implant placement: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

The effectiveness of immediate implant placement for single tooth replacement compared to delayed implant placement: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Flapless immediate implant placement and provisionalization in periodontal patients: A retrospective consecutive case‐series study of single‐tooth sites with dehiscence‐type osseous defects

Mandibular dental implant placement immediately after teeth removal in head and neck cancer patients

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About