Bassam M Kinaia1,2, Filip Ambrosio1, Monica Lamble1, Kristyn Hope1, Maanas Shah3, Anthony L Neely1. 1. Department of Periodontology and Dental Hygiene, School of Dentistry, University of Detroit Mercy, Detroit, MI. 2. Private practice, Sterling Heights, MI. 3. Department of Periodontology, Dubai School of Dental Medicine, Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Immediate implant placement (IIP) is predictable but can lead to esthetic challenges, including midfacial recession (MFR) and papillary height (PH) loss. The aim of this systematic review is to examine the effect of IIP on MFR and PH after at least 12 months of functional loading. METHODS: Literature review of the Cochrane and MEDLINE electronic databases and hand search up to January 2016 identified eligible studies. Four reviewers independently assessed data quality and methodology. RESULTS: A total of 106 articles satisfied the inclusion criteria. Twelve studies qualified for three meta-analyses. MFR was slightly less in conventional implant placement (CIP) than in IIP, but the result was not statistically significant (mean difference [MD] -0.064 mm; P = 0.687). Similarly, there was better PH maintenance in CIPs, with statistical significance for distal PH (DPH) only (cumulative PH: MD -0.396, P = 0.010; DPH: MD -0.765, P <0.001; mesial PH [MPH]: MD -0.285, P = 0.256). MFR was slightly less in IIP with thick versus thin biotypes, but not statistically significantly different (MD -0.373, P = 0.243). Pooled data showed statistically significantly less MFR and better PH maintenance in IIP with thick biotype (MFR: MD -0.478, P <0.001; cumulative PH: MD -0.287, P <0.001; MPH: MD -0.288, P <0.001; DPH: MD -0.310, P <0.001). Non-significantly less MFR (MD 0.253, P = 0.384) and significantly better PH maintenance were found in IIP with immediate provisionalization versus conventional restoration (MD -0.519, P = 0.028). CONCLUSIONS: IIP in thick biotype and with immediate provisionalization had less MFR and better PH than IIP in thin biotype or with delayed restoration. However, these findings should be interpreted with caution due to high heterogeneity, which was calculated using comprehensive meta-analysis statistical software that took into account sample size and different treatment groups, and limited qualified studies.
BACKGROUND: Immediate implant placement (IIP) is predictable but can lead to esthetic challenges, including midfacial recession (MFR) and papillary height (PH) loss. The aim of this systematic review is to examine the effect of IIP on MFR and PH after at least 12 months of functional loading. METHODS: Literature review of the Cochrane and MEDLINE electronic databases and hand search up to January 2016 identified eligible studies. Four reviewers independently assessed data quality and methodology. RESULTS: A total of 106 articles satisfied the inclusion criteria. Twelve studies qualified for three meta-analyses. MFR was slightly less in conventional implant placement (CIP) than in IIP, but the result was not statistically significant (mean difference [MD] -0.064 mm; P = 0.687). Similarly, there was better PH maintenance in CIPs, with statistical significance for distal PH (DPH) only (cumulative PH: MD -0.396, P = 0.010; DPH: MD -0.765, P <0.001; mesial PH [MPH]: MD -0.285, P = 0.256). MFR was slightly less in IIP with thick versus thin biotypes, but not statistically significantly different (MD -0.373, P = 0.243). Pooled data showed statistically significantly less MFR and better PH maintenance in IIP with thick biotype (MFR: MD -0.478, P <0.001; cumulative PH: MD -0.287, P <0.001; MPH: MD -0.288, P <0.001; DPH: MD -0.310, P <0.001). Non-significantly less MFR (MD 0.253, P = 0.384) and significantly better PH maintenance were found in IIP with immediate provisionalization versus conventional restoration (MD -0.519, P = 0.028). CONCLUSIONS: IIP in thick biotype and with immediate provisionalization had less MFR and better PH than IIP in thin biotype or with delayed restoration. However, these findings should be interpreted with caution due to high heterogeneity, which was calculated using comprehensive meta-analysis statistical software that took into account sample size and different treatment groups, and limited qualified studies.
Authors: Davide Farronato; Pietro Mario Pasini; Mattia Manfredini; Cristian Scognamiglio; Andrea Alain Orsina; Marco Farronato Journal: BMC Oral Health Date: 2020-02-17 Impact factor: 2.757