Success Rates and Complications Associated with Single Immediate Implants: A Systematic Review

Abstract

This study examined the success rates of single immediate implants and their associated biological, hardware and aesthetic complications. Using a developed search strategy, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on single-unit immediate implants with at least six human participants, a minimum follow-up time of 12 months and published between January 1999 and January 2021 were identified. Data was extracted independently using pre-designed data extraction forms. Information on success rates and associated biological, hardware and aesthetic complications were obtained and assessed. Out of 191 potentially eligible studies, 26 RCTs assessing 1270 patients with a total of 1326 single implants were included and further evaluated. In this review, success rate was reported to be 96.7–100% over a total of 9 studies. However, there was a lack of consensus on a universal success criterion between authors emphasizing the need for agreement. The average follow up was 29 months and most reported complications were aesthetic (63 cases, 4.7%), whilst there were relatively fewer biological, (20 cases, 1.5%), and hardware complications (24 cases, 1.8%). Success rate is an uncommon clinical outcome with 9 out of 26 of the selected RCTs reporting it. In these studies, single immediate implants showed a high success rate with low numbers of biological and hardware complications, and high patient satisfaction with aesthetics were reported in the short-term follow-up of one year.

Survival Rates and Factors Affecting the Outcome Following Immediate and Delayed Implant Placement: A Retrospective Study

“…No differences were detected between the treatment groups for probing pocket depth and the pink esthetic score [ 31 ]. In contrast, when the success of single immediate implants was assessed, high success rates, patient satisfaction and esthetics were reported with limited biological and hardware complications [ 32 ]. Moreover, a meta-analysis that included 163 publications in which 17,278 and 38,738 implants placed in fresh extraction sockets and healed sites, respectively, showed an increased risk of implant failure in fresh sockets and more specifically in the maxillary implants [ 33 ].…”

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

“…It is shown that the success rate of II and DI is comparable, usually above 90% [ 21 , 22 ]. The results of this study also found that the success rate of the two plantation methods exceeded 90% with no significant difference.…”

The bone shielding versus dual‐zone concept in treating thin‐walled fresh extraction sockets with immediate implant placement: Soft and hard tissue changes. A randomized clinical trial

“…[3][4][5] However, immediate implants fail to halt postextraction buccal bone plate resorption, which might lead to midfacial recession and esthetic complications. [6][7][8][9] Several techniques have been proposed to preserve the buccal plate from bone resorption following immediate implant placement with no proven effectiveness. 7,10,11 The dual-zone (DZ) concept was first described by Chu et al 12 to minimize the amount of buccal contour change at the extraction site and enhance the thickness of the peri-implant soft tissues by filling the buccal gap with bone graft in two zones, namely, the bone zone until the crest of the socket bone and the soft tissue zone.…”

“…Substantial evidence showed variable dimensional changes following tooth extraction, ranging from 15% to 55%, in the esthetic zone 3–5 . However, immediate implants fail to halt postextraction buccal bone plate resorption, which might lead to midfacial recession and esthetic complications 6–9 . Several techniques have been proposed to preserve the buccal plate from bone resorption following immediate implant placement with no proven effectiveness 7,10,11 …”