The comparative assessment of the of the effectiveness of immediate and delayed dental implantation

Differences in Dental Implant Survival between Immediate vs. Delayed Placement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…Among the 10 studies included in this review, all authors sought to investigate the impact of immediate versus delayed implant placement upon the survival of implants over varied time periods [24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32].…”

“…A summary of the main evidence characteristics of the cited studies is shown in Table 4. The research designs included six randomised controlled trials [24][25][26][29][30][31], a non-randomised comparative study [27], two prospective cohort studies [28,33] and one retrospective cohort study [32].…”

“…The populations included in the studies are included in Table 1 and were generally balanced between the intervention and comparator groups. They are as follows: adults requiring implants in the posterior mandible [24], predominantly premolar and molar regions [25], maxillary region from second premolar to second premolar region [26], all anterior and posterior dental regions [27], implants in posterior regions mainly in the mandible [28], implants in the premolar or molar sites [29], implants in the anterior maxilla after single-tooth extraction [33], implants in bony defects within the anterior aesthetic zone [30], implants in the anterior and premolar regions following single-tooth extraction [31] and implants inserted in the maxillary and mandibular regions of head and neck surgery patients [32]. All studies reported the outcome of implant survival at said time points, while most also explored other outcomes of importance, which are summarised in Table 5.…”

“…The implant survival rates for the immediate and delayed implant groups in each study were reported as follows (survival rates are given, respectively, relative to immediate and delayed placement): 94.7% vs. 100% (Bömicke et al [24]), 95.9% vs. 100% (Cucchi et al [25]), 96.3% vs. 100% (Esposito et al [26]), 97.8% vs. 98.1% (Hakobyan et al [27]), 100% vs. 96.9% (Han et al [28]), 100% vs. 100% (Malchiodi et al [29]; Slagter et al, [30]), 93.8% vs. 100% (S. Raes et al [33]), 98.3% vs. 100% Tonetti et al [31] and 97.4% vs. 90.5% (Woods et al [32]).…”

“…Therefore, implant survival for implants placed immediately following tooth extraction only exceeded that of delayed placement in two studies (mean difference in survival in those two studies: 5.0%), although one observed a moderate risk of bias, Han et al [28], and the other was based on patients with head and neck pathologies that would have directly influenced implant viability and longevity, Woods et al [32]. In contrast, delayed implant placement was associated with superior implant survival in most of the trials (n = 6) included in this review [24][25][26][27]31,33]. Comparable survival rates between immediate and delayed implant placement were observed in two studies [29,30], but this may be explained by the limited follow-up period of one year and the relatively small sample sizes included in the analyses, as well as the studies excluding smoking and parafunctional habits with regard to their eligibility criteria.…”