Seyed Hossein Bassir1,2, Karim El Kholy1,3,4, Chia-Yu Chen1, Kyu Ha Lee5,6, Giuseppe Intini7,8,9. 1. Division of Periodontology, Department of Oral Medicine, Infection, and Immunity, Harvard School of Dental Medicine, Boston, MA, USA. 2. Department of Periodontology, School of Dental Medicine, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, USA. 3. Division of Implants and Regenerative Medicine, Department of Restorative Dentistry and Biomaterials Sciences, Harvard School of Dental Medicine. 4. Department of Oral Surgery and Stomatology, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. 5. The Forsyth Institute, Cambridge, MA, USA. 6. Department of Oral Health Policy and Epidemiology, Harvard School of Dental Medicine. 7. Harvard Stem Cell Institute, Cambridge, MA, USA. 8. Department of Periodontics and Preventive Dentistry, University of Pittsburgh School of Dental Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 9. University of Pittsburgh McGowan Institute for Regenerative Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the clinical efficacy of the early dental implant placement protocol with immediate and delayed dental implant placement protocols. METHODS: An electronic and manual search of literature was made to identify clinical studies comparing early implant placement with immediate or delayed placement. Data from the included studies were pooled and quantitative analyses were performed for the implant outcomes reported as the number of failed implants (primary outcome variable) and for changes in peri-implant marginal bone level, peri-implant probing depth, and peri-implant soft tissue level (secondary outcome variables). RESULTS: Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria. Significant difference in risk of implant failure was found neither between the early and immediate placement protocols (risk difference = -0.018; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.06, 0.025; P = 0.416) nor between early and delayed placement protocols (risk difference = -0.008; 95% CI = -0.044, 0.028; P = 0.670). Pooled data of changes in peri-implant marginal bone level demonstrated significantly less marginal bone loss for implants placed using the early placement protocol compared with those placed in fresh extraction sockets (P = 0.001; weighted mean difference = -0.14 mm; 95% CI = -0.22, -0.05). No significant differences were found between the protocols for the other variables. CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence supports the clinical efficacy of the early implant placement protocol. Present findings indicate that the early implant placement protocol results in implant outcomes similar to immediate and delayed placement protocols and a superior stability of peri-implant hard tissue compared with immediate implant placement.
BACKGROUND: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the clinical efficacy of the early dental implant placement protocol with immediate and delayed dental implant placement protocols. METHODS: An electronic and manual search of literature was made to identify clinical studies comparing early implant placement with immediate or delayed placement. Data from the included studies were pooled and quantitative analyses were performed for the implant outcomes reported as the number of failed implants (primary outcome variable) and for changes in peri-implant marginal bone level, peri-implant probing depth, and peri-implant soft tissue level (secondary outcome variables). RESULTS: Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria. Significant difference in risk of implant failure was found neither between the early and immediate placement protocols (risk difference = -0.018; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.06, 0.025; P = 0.416) nor between early and delayed placement protocols (risk difference = -0.008; 95% CI = -0.044, 0.028; P = 0.670). Pooled data of changes in peri-implant marginal bone level demonstrated significantly less marginal bone loss for implants placed using the early placement protocol compared with those placed in fresh extraction sockets (P = 0.001; weighted mean difference = -0.14 mm; 95% CI = -0.22, -0.05). No significant differences were found between the protocols for the other variables. CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence supports the clinical efficacy of the early implant placement protocol. Present findings indicate that the early implant placement protocol results in implant outcomes similar to immediate and delayed placement protocols and a superior stability of peri-implant hard tissue compared with immediate implant placement.
Authors: G Polizzi; U Grunder; R Goené; N Hatano; P Henry; W J Jackson; K Kawamura; F Renouard; R Rosenberg; G Triplett; M Werbitt; B Lithner Journal: Clin Implant Dent Relat Res Date: 2000 Impact factor: 3.932
Authors: Daniel Buser; Michael M Bornstein; Hans Peter Weber; Linda Grütter; Bruno Schmid; Urs C Belser Journal: J Periodontol Date: 2008-09 Impact factor: 6.993
Authors: Marco Esposito; Maria Gabriella Grusovin; Ilias P Polyzos; Pietro Felice; Helen V Worthington Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2010-09-08
Authors: Jan Cosyn; Aryan Eghbali; Hugo De Bruyn; Melissa Dierens; Tim De Rouck Journal: Clin Implant Dent Relat Res Date: 2010-07-17 Impact factor: 3.932
Authors: José Antonio Moreno-Rodríguez; Julia Guerrero-Gironés; Francisco Javier Rodríguez-Lozano; Miguel Ramón Pecci-Lloret Journal: Materials (Basel) Date: 2021-05-23 Impact factor: 3.623