Transcrestal sinus floor augmentation with immediate implant placement applied in three types of fresh extraction sockets: A clinical prospective study with 1‐year follow‐up

Abstract

In consideration of the advantages of sinus floor augmentation and immediate implant placement, our clinical result confirms that it is promising to combine the 2 techniques for replacing maxillary molars especially when using residual roots as implant orientation and taking full advantage of the interradicular crest bone.

Immediate implant placement in molar extraction sockets: a systematic review and meta-analysis

“…Eleven studies reported on MBL, analyzed through the use of periapical radiography, including data of 372 implants [ 13 , 16 , 22 , 18 – 21 , 24 , 25 , 27 , 29 , 32 ]. The estimated global MBL over 1 year of follow-up was 1.29 ± 0.24 mm with 95% CI (0.81–1.76) (Fig.…”

“…Survival was defined as implants remaining in situ at the follow-up examinations, irrespective of their conditions. All 20 studies reported survival rates, leading to a weighted mean survival rate of 96.6% with 95% CI (93.5-99.7) [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32]. Certain considerations must be taken into account when interpreting the estimates of the individual studies: the study by Atieh et al shows a greater standard deviation, due to the small sample size, only 12 implants [13].…”

“…Six investigations were included for the analysis of implant position, four studies reported implants placed in the mandible [13,14,19,20], two studies reported implants placed in maxilla [25,26]. Studies assessing implant survival in the posterior maxilla yielded a 100% survival rate.…”

“…The studies included in this systematic review that analyzed survival and success rates as well as MBL depending on the type of implant-abutment connection [13,[15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32] reported no statistically significant for implant survival rate (p = 0.511) success rate (p = 0.463) and MBL (p = 0.393) around implants with internal or external connections.…”

“…The influence of surgical protocol on implant survival was assessed in 19 studies showing 97.1% with 95% CI (92.9-100) for implant placed in one surgical stage, in which a healing abutment or immediate restoration has been placed on the day of surgery. For implants placed in 2 surgical phases was 95.3% with 95% CI (89.8-100) [13, 14, 16, 18, 20-22, 25, 28-30, 32]; without statistical significant difference (p = 0.616) [15,19,23,24,26,27,31] MBL was assessed in 11 studies, reporting 1.43 ± 0.92 mm with 95% CI (0.87-1.99) mean MBL for implants placed in one surgical stage [13,16,18,20,21,25,29,32] and 0.91 ± 0.46 mm with 95% CI (0.01-1.81) mean MBL for implants placed in two stages [19,24,27].…”