ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To compare immediate implant placement (IIP) with early implant placement (EIP) for single tooth replacement in the aesthetic area in terms of aesthetic, clinical, and patient-reported outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two independent reviewers conducted an electronic literature search in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane databases as well as a manual search to identify eligible clinical studies up to February 2023. Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) comparing IIP with EIP were included for a qualitative and quantitative analysis. The primary outcome was vertical midfacial soft tissue change. Secondary outcomes were horizontal midfacial soft tissue change, vertical papillary change, pink esthetic score (PES), implant survival, buccal bone thickness, marginal bone level change, patient discomfort, chair time, and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: Out of 1185 records, 6 RCTs were selected, reporting on 222 patients who received 222 single implants (IIP: 112 implants in 112 patients; EIP: 110 implants in 110 patients) in the anterior maxilla or mandible. Patients had a mean age ranging from 35.6 to 52.6 years and were followed between 8 and 24 months. Two RCTs showed some concerns, and four showed a high risk of bias. Four studies could be included in a meta-analysis on the primary outcome and three only considered cases with an intact buccal bone wall. Meta-analysis failed to demonstrate a significant difference in terms of vertical midfacial soft tissue change between IIP and EIP (mean difference: 0.31 mm, 95% CI [-0.23; 0.86], p = .260; I2 = 83%, p < .001). No significant differences were found for PES (standardized mean difference: 0.92, 95% CI [-0.23; 2.07], p = .120; I2 = 89%, p < .001), implant survival (RR: 0.98, 95% CI [0.93, 1.03], p = .480; I2 = 0%, p = .980), and marginal bone level change (mean difference: 0.03 mm, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.17], p = .700; I2 = 0%, p = .470). Insufficient data were available for meta-analyses of other secondary outcomes. CONCLUSION: In low-risk patients with an intact buccal bone wall, there seems to be no difference between IIP and EIP in terms of aesthetic and clinical outcomes. The strength of this conclusion is rated as low since studies showed an unclear or high risk of bias. In addition, state-of-the-art therapy was only delivered in a minority of studies. Future RCTs should also provide data on patient-reported outcomes since these have been underreported.
ABSTRACT
AIM: To assess the impact of mucoperiosteal flap elevation for single immediate implant placement (IIP) on buccal hard and soft tissue changes, and on clinical, aesthetic and patient-reported outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two independent reviewers conducted an electronic literature search in Pubmed, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane databases as well as a manual search to identify eligible clinical studies up to June 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IIP without flap elevation to IIP with flap elevation were included for a qualitative and quantitative analysis. The primary outcome was horizontal buccal bone change. Secondary outcomes were implant survival, vertical buccal bone change, pain, and clinical and aesthetic parameters. RESULTS: Out of 1029 records, 5 RCTs were selected reporting on 140 patients who received 140 single immediate implants (flapless: 68; flap: 72). Patients had a mean age ranging from 30 to 67 years and were followed between 6 and 12 months. Four RCTs pertained to (nearly) intact alveoli. Risk of bias assessment yielded low risk for two RCTs and high risk for three RCTs. Meta-analysis demonstrated a mean difference of 0.48 mm (95% confidence interval [CI] [0.13, 0.84], p = .007) in horizontal buccal bone change between surgical approaches, favouring flapless surgery. Meta-analysis failed to demonstrate a significant difference in implant survival between the groups (RR 1.00, 95% CI [0.93, 1.07], p = .920). Given the scarcity of data, meta-analyses could not be performed on other secondary outcomes. Available studies were consistent in the direction of the effect favouring flapless surgery for vertical buccal bone change as well as for pain. Clinical and aesthetic parameters were underreported. CONCLUSIONS: Based on CBCT data, flapless surgery resulted in more buccal bone preservation at immediate implants. However, the clinical relevance of this finding is unclear, since clinical and aesthetic outcomes were underreported.
Subject(s)
Dental Implants , Immediate Dental Implant Loading , Humans , Child, Preschool , Dental Implantation, Endosseous/methods , Esthetics, Dental , Surgical Flaps/surgery , BiasABSTRACT
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Various options are available to allow angle correction for screw-retained restorations for malaligned implants, including angled abutments, angled screw channel abutments, and angled implants. However, the effect these angle correction components have on prosthetic screw loosening is unclear. PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the effect of angled abutments, angled screw channel abutments, and angled implants on prosthetic screw loosening. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This manuscript followed the Preferred Reporting Items for the Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Searches were performed through 31 December 2021 in PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science with no year limit targeting in vitro studies evaluating the effect of angulation correction components on screw loosening. RESULTS: A total of 460 articles were identified. After removing duplicates, 306 titles were screened. Nine of the remaining 36 articles selected for full-text analysis met the selection criteria. The qualitative analysis used data from 394 implants. All studies featured straight abutments as the control group, and, in 8 studies, the angle correction component was included on the level of the abutment. Only in 1 study was the angle correction component at the level of the implant. The angle correction of the prosthetic component varied from 0 degrees in all studies up to a maximum correction of 30 degrees. Statistically significant increases in screw loosening with increasing abutment angle correction were reported by multiple authors (P<.05). However, other articles reported nonsignificant differences in screw loosening because of angulation after cyclic loading (P>.05). The only study investigating angle correction at the implant level found significantly less screw loosening (P<.05) in the angled implant group compared with the nonangled implant group. CONCLUSIONS: Several options are available to correct discrepancies between the surgical axis and the ideal prosthetic axis for rehabilitations supported by dental implants. The current evidence does not clearly indicate the superiority of any single solution for minimizing screw loosening.
ABSTRACT
AIM: To assess the effect of immediate provisionalization (IP) on soft tissue changes, hard tissue changes, and clinical parameters following single immediate implant placement (IIP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two independent reviewers conducted an electronic literature search in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane databases as well as a manual search to identify eligible clinical studies up to September 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IIP with IP (test) and IIP without IP (control) were included for a qualitative and quantitative analysis. The primary outcome was vertical midfacial soft tissue changes. Secondary outcomes included horizontal midfacial soft tissue changes, implant survival, mesial and distal papillary changes, Pink Esthetic Score (PES) at final follow-up, marginal bone-level changes, probing depth at final follow-up, and bleeding on probing at final follow-up. RESULTS: Of the 8213 records, 7 RCTs reporting on 323 patients who received 323 single immediate implants (IIP + IP: 161 implants in 161 patients; IIP: 162 implants in 162 patients) were selected with a mean follow-up ranging from 12 to 60 months. Risk of bias assessment yielded some concerns for five RCTs and high risk for two RCTs. Meta-analysis on the cases with intact alveoli demonstrated 0.87 mm (95% confidence interval [CI] [0.57; 1.17], p < .001) less apical migration of the midfacial soft tissue level for IIP + IP when compared to IIP alone. Implant survival, papillary changes, marginal bone-level changes, probing depth, and bleeding on probing were not significantly affected by IP. Insufficient data were available for meta-analyses on horizontal midfacial soft tissue changes and PES. CONCLUSIONS: IP may contribute to midfacial soft tissue stability at immediate implants. However, high-quality RCTs are needed since the strength of this conclusion is currently rated as low according to GRADE guidelines.
