Tapered, Double-Lead Threads Single Implants Placed in Fresh Extraction Sockets and Healed Sites of the Posterior Jaws: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial with 1 to 3 Years of Follow-Up

Cucchi, Alessandro; Vignudelli, Elisabetta; Franco, S; Levrini, Luca; Castellani, D; Pagliani, Luca; Rea, Massimiliano; Modena, Claudio; Sandri, Giulio; Longhi, Carlo

doi:10.1155/2017/8017175

Cited by 7 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The studies of Cucchi et al. () and Lindeboom et al. (,b) showed high risk of bias for one criterion.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…The characteristics of the included studies are reported in Table . Of the 8 finally selected studies, 3 were RCTs (Cucchi et al., , Lindeboom et al., 2006, Tonetti et al., ) and 5 were NRSs (Atieh et al., ; Cooper et al., ; Mangano et al., ; Raes, Cosyn, Noyelle, Raes, & De Bruyn, ; Raes et al., ; Siciliano et al., ). The present systematic review pooled data of 512 patients with a mean age ranging from 40 to 55 years, treated with a total of 517 single implants.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Smokers were only included in three studies and accounted for 13.7%–14.5% of the patients (Cucchi et al., ; Tonetti et al., ). Mangano et al.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…() exclusively reported on molar replacement, whereas Cucchi et al. () studied single implant placement in premolar and molar sites. Lindeboom, Tjiook, and Kroon (), Lindeboom et al.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…() aimed for transmucosal healing around a healing cap, whereas Cucchi et al. () and Lindeboom et al. (,b) pursued submerged healing.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

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

111

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

“…The studies of Cucchi et al. () and Lindeboom et al. (,b) showed high risk of bias for one criterion.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Smokers were only included in three studies and accounted for 13.7%–14.5% of the patients (Cucchi et al., ; Tonetti et al., ). Mangano et al.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…() exclusively reported on molar replacement, whereas Cucchi et al. () studied single implant placement in premolar and molar sites. Lindeboom, Tjiook, and Kroon (), Lindeboom et al.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…() aimed for transmucosal healing around a healing cap, whereas Cucchi et al. () and Lindeboom et al. (,b) pursued submerged healing.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

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

111

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

A technique for immediate implant placement in mandibular multirooted teeth by the aid of a dynamic guidance system and preparing implant bed before tooth extraction

Yan

Liu

et al. 2023

Journal of Stomatology, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Implant placement and loading protocols in partially edentulous patients: A systematic review

Gallucci

Hamilton

Zhou

et al. 2018

Clinical Oral Implants Res

142

164

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To systematically review the evidence for the clinical outcome of fixed implant prostheses treated with different combinations of implant placement and loading protocols in partially edentulous patients. Materials and methods: An electronic search was performed in Medline, Embase, andCentral to identify studies investigating the outcome of implants subjected to immediate placement + immediate restoration/loading (Type 1A), immediate placement + early loading (Type 1B), immediate placement + conventional loading (Type 1C), early placement + immediate restoration/loading (Type 2-3A), early placement + early loading (Type 2-3B), early placement + conventional loading (Type 2-3C), late placement + immediate restoration/loading (Type 4A), late placement + early loading (Type 4B), late placement + conventional loading (Type 4C) with implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (IFDPs) in partially edentulous patients. Only human studies with at least 10 cases and a minimum follow-up time of 12 months, reporting on solid-screw-type implants with rough surfaces and an intra-osseous diameter between 3 and 6 mm, were included. A cumulative survival rate for each type of the implant placement and loading protocols was weighted by the duration of follow-up and number of implants. Results:The search provided 5,248 titles from which 2,362 abstracts and 449 full-text articles were screened. A total of 69 publications that comprised 23 comparative studies (15 randomized controlled trials, 7 controlled clinical trials) and 47 noncomparative studies (34 prospective cohort studies, 13 retrospective cohort studies) were included for analysis. Considerable heterogeneity in study design was found, and therefore, a metaanalysis of controlled studies was not possible. The weighted cumulative survival rate of each type of placement and loading protocol was 98.4% (Type 1A), 98.2% (Type 1B), 96.0% (Type 1C), 100% (Type 2-3B), 96.3% (Type 2-3C), 97.9% (Type 4A), 98.3% (Type 4B), and 97.7% (Type 4C). Type 1C, Type 2-3C, Type 4B, and Type 4C were scientifically and clinically validated (SCV). Type 1A, Type 1B, and Type 4A were clinically documented (CD), and Type 2-3A and Type 2-3B were clinically insufficiently documented (CID). Conclusions:Evaluating outcomes in oral implantology by combining the placement and loading protocols are paramount. The selected loading protocol appears to influence the outcome of immediate implant placement. K E Y W O R D Sdental implants, early loading, early placement, immediate loading, immediate placementThis is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.

show abstract

Tapered, Double-Lead Threads Single Implants Placed in Fresh Extraction Sockets and Healed Sites of the Posterior Jaws: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial with 1 to 3 Years of Follow-Up

Cited by 7 publications

References 50 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

A technique for immediate implant placement in mandibular multirooted teeth by the aid of a dynamic guidance system and preparing implant bed before tooth extraction

Implant placement and loading protocols in partially edentulous patients: A systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About