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

Abstract

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.

Immediate implant placement in molar extraction sites: a 1-year prospective case series pilot study

“…This tendency is related to evolving society factors, including more demanding patients and a wish for direct treatment, whereupon innovations in implant surfaces and designs are facilitating the possibilities [7,8]. Despite systematic reviews pointing out that there is a slightly higher risk of early implant loss compared to delayed implant placement, immediate implant placement in extraction sites is now presumed to be a reliable treatment option for single tooth implants [1,2,9].…”

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

“…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).…”

“…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).…”

Immediate Implant Placement in the Aesthetic Zone: A Multidisciplinary Management - Case Report

“…The reported survival rates for early and late implant protocols (type 2-4) range from 97.17 to 98% [24], compared to immediate placement (type 1), which ranges from 93.80 to 100% [24,25]. Therefore, it could be an option to consider through prior evaluation of the patient since it reduces the total treatment time and increases patient comfort.…”