Which is the best choice after tooth extraction, immediate implant placement or delayed placement with alveolar ridge preservation? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Canellas, João Vitor dos Santos; Medeiros, Paulo José; Figueredo, Carlos Marcelo da Silva; Fischer, Ricardo Guimarães; Ritto, Fabio

doi:10.1016/j.jcms.2019.08.004

Cited by 63 publications

(51 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The histomorphometric analysis in this study demonstrated that RP hindered bone formation in extraction sockets. Consistent with this observation, a previous meta‐analysis demonstrated a significant difference averaging −13% of new bone formation between sockets grafted with DBBM‐C or unassisted (Canellas et al, 2019). Extrapolation of this conclusion to our findings might be argued when considering that noncompromised sockets were exclusively included in this meta‐analysis.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 67%

Is ridge preservation effective in the extraction sockets of periodontally compromised teeth? A randomized controlled trial

Amara

Kim

et al. 2021

J Clinic Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To verify whether ridge preservation is effective in the reduction of dimensional loss and in bone formation compared to spontaneous healing in extraction sockets of periodontally compromised teeth. Methods Twenty‐six subjects requiring tooth extraction for stage III/IV periodontitis were randomly assigned to one of two interventions: alveolar ridge preservation using collagenated bovine bone mineral and a resorbable collagen membrane (test, RP) or spontaneous healing (control, SH). Six months later, postoperative cone‐beam computed tomography (CBCT) was performed to measure the linear and volumetric changes of the sockets compared to baseline scans. Biopsies were retrieved at the implant site for histomorphometric calculations. Nonparametric tests were applied for statistical analysis. Results Significantly less shrinkage occurred in RP compared to SH, mainly in the crestal zone. The width loss difference between groups was 3.3 mm and 2.2 mm at 1 mm and 3 mm below the crest, respectively (p < .05). RP yielded a gain in socket height of 0.25 mm, whereas a loss of −0.39 mm was observed in SH (p < .05). The percentage of volume loss recorded in RP was also less than that recorded in SH (−26.53% vs −50.34, p < .05). Significantly less bone proportion was detected in biopsies from RP (30.1%) compared with SH (53.9%). A positive association between baseline bone loss and ridge shrinkage was found in SH but not in RP. Conclusion Ridge preservation in extraction sockets of periodontally compromised teeth was effective in reducing the amount of ridge resorption.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 67%

Is ridge preservation effective in the extraction sockets of periodontally compromised teeth? A randomized controlled trial

Amara

Kim

et al. 2021

J Clinic Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other systematic reviews reporting short‐term results indicate that there is a slightly higher risk of implant loss with immediate placement in post‐extraction sockets compared with delayed placement in healed sites (Cosyn et al, 2019; Gallucci et al, 2018; Mello et al, 2017). However, one systematic review noted that immediately placed implants were accompanied by a better preservation of peri‐implant bone levels (Canellas et al, 2019). Furthermore, immediate implant placement seems to be well appreciated by patients (Huynh‐Ba et al, 2018) probably because the accompanying minimal invasive flapless surgery has less an impact on the hard and soft tissues than with delayed procedures (Weigl & Strangio, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Immediate placement of single implants with or without immediate provisionalization in the maxillary aesthetic region: A 5‐year comparative study

Slagter

Raghoebar

Hentenaar

et al. 2020

J Clinic Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim To compare marginal bone level changes around immediately placed and immediately provisionalized implants with immediately placed and delayed provisionalized implants in the aesthetic region after five years of function. Materials and Methods Forty patients with a failing tooth in the maxillary anterior region were randomly assigned immediate implant placement with immediate (Group A: n = 20) or delayed (Group B: n = 20) provisionalization. Definitive crown placement occurred three months after provisionalization. The primary outcomes were changes in marginal bone level. In addition, survival rates, buccal bone thickness, soft peri‐implant tissues, aesthetics and patient‐reported outcomes were assessed. Results After 5 years, the mean mesial and distal marginal bone level changes were 0.71 ± 0.68 mm and 0.71 ± 0.71 mm, respectively, in group A and 0.49 ± 0.52 mm and 0.54 ± 0.64 mm, respectively, in group B; the difference between the groups was not significant ( p = .305 and p = .477, respectively). Implant and restoration survivals were 100%. No clinically relevant differences in buccal bone thickness or in mid‐facial peri‐implant mucosal level, aesthetic and patient outcomes were observed. Conclusions The mean marginal bone level changes following immediate implant placement and provisionalization were comparable with immediate implant placement and delayed provisionalization. ( www.isrctn.com : ISRCTN57251089 and www.trialregister.nl : NL8255).

show abstract

“…Since implant therapy has become one of the most important dental procedures, many techniques for implant placement and timing of implant installation have been studied and developed. Popular studies have centered around implant placement timing as well as immediate placement in fresh extraction sockets [1][2][3] .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Immediate implant placement in fresh extraction sockets

Lee

2021

JKAOMS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Immediate implant placement (IIP) in fresh extraction sockets exhibits similar survival and success rates to delayed implant placement in healed sockets. Several advantages of IIP involve shortened total treatment time, reduction of the number of invasive surgeries, and subsequent reduction of patient discomfort due to lack of additional surgeries. The major shortcomings in IIP, however, include the inability to obtain early bony support, presence of a gap between the extraction socket and fixture, and the inability to cover the fixture with soft tissue, leading to increased risk of infection and implant loss. When IIP is performed, atraumatic or minimally traumatic extractions, conservation of the septal bone in molars, minimal flap elevation or flapless surgery, bone grafting the gap between the fixture and the extraction socket, and coverage with soft tissue or a membrane must be considered.

show abstract

Which is the best choice after tooth extraction, immediate implant placement or delayed placement with alveolar ridge preservation? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Cited by 63 publications

References 22 publications

Is ridge preservation effective in the extraction sockets of periodontally compromised teeth? A randomized controlled trial

Is ridge preservation effective in the extraction sockets of periodontally compromised teeth? A randomized controlled trial

Immediate placement of single implants with or without immediate provisionalization in the maxillary aesthetic region: A 5‐year comparative study

Immediate implant placement in fresh extraction sockets

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About