Outcome of early dental implant placement versus other dental implant placement protocols: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
clinical protocols
dental implantation/methods
dental implants
meta-analysis
time factors
tooth extraction
tooth socket/surgery
Journal
Journal of periodontology
ISSN: 1943-3670
Titre abrégé: J Periodontol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8000345
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 2019
05 2019
Historique:
received:
30
05
2018
revised:
24
10
2018
accepted:
24
10
2018
pubmed:
6
11
2018
medline:
18
12
2019
entrez:
6
11
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
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. 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). 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. 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.
Sections du résumé
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30395355
doi: 10.1002/JPER.18-0338
pmc: PMC6500770
mid: NIHMS1007867
doi:
Substances chimiques
Dental Implants
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
493-506Subventions
Organisme : NCATS NIH HHS
ID : UL1 TR001102
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
© 2018 American Academy of Periodontology.
Références
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2000;2(2):93-9
pubmed: 11359269
J Dent Res. 2015 Mar;94(3 Suppl):44S-51S
pubmed: 25503901
J Periodontol. 2002 Jul;73(7):754-61
pubmed: 12146535
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2012 Aug;14(4):517-26
pubmed: 20662859
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Sep 08;(9):CD005968
pubmed: 20824846
J Clin Periodontol. 2005 Jun;32(6):645-52
pubmed: 15882225
J Periodontol. 2008 Sep;79(9):1773-81
pubmed: 18771381
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2004;6(1):1-8
pubmed: 15595703
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014 Dec;25(12):1359-65
pubmed: 25040354
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2003 Aug;23(4):313-23
pubmed: 12956475
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009 Dec;20(12):1341-50
pubmed: 19793321
J Periodontol. 1997 Nov;68(11):1110-6
pubmed: 9407405
Periodontol 2000. 2017 Feb;73(1):84-102
pubmed: 28000278
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2010 Sep-Oct;25(5):970-8
pubmed: 20862411
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2011 Sep-Oct;26(5):1108-22
pubmed: 22010096
J Periodontol. 2011 Mar;82(3):342-9
pubmed: 20831371
Clin Oral Implants Res. 1996 Sep;7(3):268-76
pubmed: 9151591
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2008 Jul-Aug;23(4):733-43
pubmed: 18807572
J Periodontol. 2013 Nov;84(11):1517-27
pubmed: 23347346
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2007;22 Suppl:203-23
pubmed: 18437797
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012 Nov-Dec;27(6):1554-9
pubmed: 23189310
J Clin Periodontol. 2005 May;32(5):480-7
pubmed: 15842263
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012 Feb;23 Suppl 5:67-79
pubmed: 22211306
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2009;24 Suppl:186-217
pubmed: 19885446
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008 Nov;19(11):1148-53
pubmed: 18983318
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004;19 Suppl:12-25
pubmed: 15635942
J Periodontol. 2003 Feb;74(2):268-73
pubmed: 12666717
Clin Oral Implants Res. 1998 Feb;9(1):26-33
pubmed: 9590942
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004;19 Suppl:26-8
pubmed: 15635943
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008 Jan;19(1):73-80
pubmed: 17956569
Ann Stomatol (Roma). 2014 Oct 25;5(Suppl 2 to No 2):15-26
pubmed: 25678947
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2015 Dec;17(6):1188-99
pubmed: 26010600
Syst Rev. 2015 Jan 01;4:1
pubmed: 25554246
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2012 Jun;14(3):336-46
pubmed: 20491818
J Periodontol. 2009 Jan;80(1):152-62
pubmed: 19228101
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1993;8(4):388-99
pubmed: 8270307
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015 Mar;26(3):278-86
pubmed: 25263735
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013 Apr;42(4):511-5
pubmed: 23142021
BMJ. 2011 Oct 18;343:d5928
pubmed: 22008217
Int J Oral Surg. 1981 Dec;10(6):387-416
pubmed: 6809663