Bruno Ramos Chrcanovic1, Tomas Albrektsson2, Ann Wennerberg3. 1. Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Odontology, Malmö University, Malmö, Sweden. Electronic address: bruno.chrcanovic@mah.se. 2. Department of Biomaterials, Göteborg University, Göteborg, Sweden; Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Odontology, Malmö University, Malmö, Sweden. 3. Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Odontology, Malmö University, Malmö, Sweden.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To test the null hypothesis of no difference in the implant failure rates, postoperative infection and marginal bone loss for the insertion of dental implants in fresh extraction sockets compared to the insertion in healed sites, against the alternative hypothesis of a difference. DATA: Main search terms used in combination: dental implant, oral implant, resh extraction socket, immediate placement, immediate insertion, immediate implant. SOURCES: An electronic search was undertaken in July/2014, in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register plus hand-searching. STUDY SELECTION: Eligibility criteria included clinical human studies, either randomized or not. CONCLUSIONS: The search strategy resulted in 73 publications, with 8,241 implants inserted in sockets (330 failures, 4.00%), and 19,410 in healed sites (599 failures, 3.09%). It is suggested that the insertion of implants in fresh extraction sockets affects the failure rates (RR 1.58, 95% CI 1.27-1.95, P<0.0001). The difference was not statistically significant when studies evaluating implants inserted in maxillae or in mandibles were pooled, or when the studies using implants to rehabilitate patients with full-arch prostheses were pooled; however, it was significant for the studies that rehabilitated patients with implant-supported single crowns and for the controlled studies. There was no apparent significant effect on the occurrence of postoperative infection or on the magnitude of marginal bone loss. The results should be interpreted with caution due to the potential for biases and to the presence of uncontrolled confounding factors in the included studies, most of them not randomized. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The question whether immediate implants are more at risk for failure than implants placed in mature bone has received increasing attention in the last years. As the philosophies of treatment alter over time, a periodic review of the different concepts is necessary to refine techniques and eliminate unnecessary procedures. This would form a basis for optimum treatment.
OBJECTIVES: To test the null hypothesis of no difference in the implant failure rates, postoperative infection and marginal bone loss for the insertion of dental implants in fresh extraction sockets compared to the insertion in healed sites, against the alternative hypothesis of a difference. DATA: Main search terms used in combination: dental implant, oral implant, resh extraction socket, immediate placement, immediate insertion, immediate implant. SOURCES: An electronic search was undertaken in July/2014, in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register plus hand-searching. STUDY SELECTION: Eligibility criteria included clinical human studies, either randomized or not. CONCLUSIONS: The search strategy resulted in 73 publications, with 8,241 implants inserted in sockets (330 failures, 4.00%), and 19,410 in healed sites (599 failures, 3.09%). It is suggested that the insertion of implants in fresh extraction sockets affects the failure rates (RR 1.58, 95% CI 1.27-1.95, P<0.0001). The difference was not statistically significant when studies evaluating implants inserted in maxillae or in mandibles were pooled, or when the studies using implants to rehabilitate patients with full-arch prostheses were pooled; however, it was significant for the studies that rehabilitated patients with implant-supported single crowns and for the controlled studies. There was no apparent significant effect on the occurrence of postoperative infection or on the magnitude of marginal bone loss. The results should be interpreted with caution due to the potential for biases and to the presence of uncontrolled confounding factors in the included studies, most of them not randomized. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The question whether immediate implants are more at risk for failure than implants placed in mature bone has received increasing attention in the last years. As the philosophies of treatment alter over time, a periodic review of the different concepts is necessary to refine techniques and eliminate unnecessary procedures. This would form a basis for optimum treatment.
Authors: Juan A V Palacios; Jaime Jiménez Garcia; João M M Caramês; Marc Quirynen; Duarte Nuno da Silva Marques Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2017-10-06 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Oded Bahat; Xing Yin; Stefan Holst; Ion Zabalegui; Eva Berroeta; Javier Pérez; Peter Wöhrle; Norbert Sörgel; John Brunski; Jill A Helms Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-04-30 Impact factor: 4.964
Authors: Raquel Zita Gomes; Mario Ramalho de Vasconcelos; Isabel Maria Lopes Guerra; Rute Alexandra Borges de Almeida; Antonio Cabral de Campos Felino Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2017-05-25 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Carlo Mangano; Jamil Awad Shibli; Jefferson Trabach Pires; Giuseppe Luongo; Adriano Piattelli; Giovanna Iezzi Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2017-02-09 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Jean-Pierre Axiotis; Paolo Nuzzolo; Carlo Barausse; Roberta Gasparro; Paolo Bucci; Roberto Pistilli; Gilberto Sammartino; Pietro Felice Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2018-07-24 Impact factor: 3.411