Santiago Mareque1, Pablo Castelo-Baz2, Joaquín López-Malla3, Juan Blanco1, José Nart4, Cristina Vallés5. 1. School of Medicine and Dentistry, Periodontology Unit, University of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain. 2. School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain. 3. Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Alfonso X El Sabio, Madrid, Spain. 4. Department of Periodontology, Universitat Internacional de Catalunya, C/ Josep Trueta s/n, 08195, Sant Cugat del Vallès, Barcelona, Spain. josenart@uic.es. 5. Department of Periodontology, Universitat Internacional de Catalunya, C/ Josep Trueta s/n, 08195, Sant Cugat del Vallès, Barcelona, Spain.
Abstract
AIM: The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the efficacy of immediate implant placement (IIP) compared to implants placed after alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) in terms of clinical, esthetic, and patient-reported outcomes. METHODS: A manual and electronic search (National Library of Medicine) was performed for controlled clinical trials, with at least 12 months of follow-up. Primary outcome variable was implant survival and secondary outcomes were marginal bone level (MBL) (change), pink esthetic score (PES), mid-facial mucosal level (change), papilla index score, complications, and patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 10 publications were included (7 randomized clinical trials and 3 controlled clinical trials). The results from the meta-analyses showed that survival rate was significantly lower in the IIP group compared to ARP group [RR = 0.33; 95% CI (0.14; 0.78); p = 0.01]. No significant differences between the two groups were observed regarding radiographic MBL, PES scores, or mid-facial mucosal level (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: The results from this systematic review and meta-analysis showed that IIP had lower survival rates and similar esthetic results when compared to ARP. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Clinicians should weigh the benefits and disadvantages of each intervention to select the optimal timing of implant placement.
AIM: The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the efficacy of immediate implant placement (IIP) compared to implants placed after alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) in terms of clinical, esthetic, and patient-reported outcomes. METHODS: A manual and electronic search (National Library of Medicine) was performed for controlled clinical trials, with at least 12 months of follow-up. Primary outcome variable was implant survival and secondary outcomes were marginal bone level (MBL) (change), pink esthetic score (PES), mid-facial mucosal level (change), papilla index score, complications, and patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 10 publications were included (7 randomized clinical trials and 3 controlled clinical trials). The results from the meta-analyses showed that survival rate was significantly lower in the IIP group compared to ARP group [RR = 0.33; 95% CI (0.14; 0.78); p = 0.01]. No significant differences between the two groups were observed regarding radiographic MBL, PES scores, or mid-facial mucosal level (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: The results from this systematic review and meta-analysis showed that IIP had lower survival rates and similar esthetic results when compared to ARP. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Clinicians should weigh the benefits and disadvantages of each intervention to select the optimal timing of implant placement.
Authors: Attila Horváth; Nikos Mardas; Luis André Mezzomo; Ian G Needleman; Nikos Donos Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2012-07-20 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Francesco Guido Mangano; Paolo Mastrangelo; Fabrizia Luongo; Alberto Blay; Samy Tunchel; Carlo Mangano Journal: Clin Oral Implants Res Date: 2016-02-23 Impact factor: 5.977
Authors: Ronald E Jung; Alexander Philipp; Beat M Annen; Luca Signorelli; Daniel S Thoma; Christoph H F Hämmerle; Thomas Attin; Patrick Schmidlin Journal: J Clin Periodontol Date: 2012-11-19 Impact factor: 8.728