Immediate placement of dental implants into infected versus noninfected sites in the esthetic zone: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Chen, Haida; Zhang, Guoxing; Weigl, Paul; Xiao, Gu

doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.12.008

Cited by 22 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The findings of this present meta-analysis are similar to the two previous meta-analyses done on this subject [ 53 , 54 ]. Both of those studies indicated that the placement of immediate implants into infected sockets does not significantly affect the rate of implant survival.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

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

Saijeva¹,

Juodžbalys

2020

JOMR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

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

Saijeva¹,

Juodžbalys

2020

JOMR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Lee et al conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and non-randomized clinical controlled trials and concluded that it is safe to place immediate implants in infected sockets after thorough debridement. 22 A similar study by Chen et al 23 also yielded similar results. Montoya-Salazar et al 24 carried out a prospective controlled study Maxilla 11 0 6 1 33 1 15 0 65 2 Mandible 8 0 8 0 16 0 29 3 61 3 Lost to follow up 0 0 2 0 7 0 7 0 16 0 Total 19 0 12 1 42 1 37 3 110 5 comparing immediate implant placement in infected and non-infected sites and used a standard preparation protocol comprising debridement, curettage, irrigation with 90% hydrogen peroxide, and decontamination with the yttrium-scandium-gallium-garnet (Er,Cr:YSGG) laser, with guided bone regeneration.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 60%

Immediate Implant Placement in Infected Sockets: A Consecutive Cohort Study

Kakar

Kakar²,

Leventis

et al. 2020

J Lasers Med Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Immediate placement of implants in a fresh post-extraction socket is an increasingly popular and established treatment option. However, active infection in the extraction site may adversely affect the outcome of this procedure. This study was designed to assess the clinical results of immediate placement of dental implants in infected extraction sockets using a standardized protocol, which included (a) the use of an Er,Cr:YSGG laser for the decontamination of the infected socket prior to implant insertion, and (b) the utilization of an in situ hardening alloplastic bone graft substitute to augment the gap between the implant surface and the labial plate of bone. Patients and Methods: A retrospective record review was used to identify 68 patients who had implants placed as per the described protocol. A total of 126 implants were placed in 68 patients (65 implants in the maxilla, 61 implants in the mandible). The implants were loaded 136 ± 73 days (mean ± standard deviation; range: 37–400 days) after implant placement. Eight patients (16 implants) were subsequently lost to follow up. Results: 105 of the 110 implants (95.45%) placed immediately in the infected sites using the described protocol survived after prosthetic loading. Conclusion: Immediate implant placement in previously infected sites using the protocols mentioned in our study with laser decontamination of the socket, grafting with an in situ hardening alloplastic bone graft material and non-submerged healing shows a similar survival rate to the published success rates for immediate implants placed in non-infected sites.

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%

“…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). Additionally, these sources of information suggest that immediate implant placement is a fragile method and it seems quite clear that in order to be successful, it is of capital importance to follow strict selection criteria and perform these types of techniques in alveoli with intact bone walls and absence of gingival recession (Tonetti et al, 2017;Weigl & Strangio, 2016).…”

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

Immediate placement of dental implants into infected versus noninfected sites in the esthetic zone: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Cited by 22 publications

References 52 publications

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

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

Immediate Implant Placement in Infected Sockets: A Consecutive Cohort Study

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About