Interventions for replacing missing teeth: dental implants in fresh extraction sockets (immediate, immediate‐delayed and delayed implants)
Referencias
References to studies included in this review
Ir a:
Additional references
Ir a:
Characteristics of studies
Characteristics of included studies [ordered by study ID]
Methods | 1.5 year postloading, randomised parallel group study. No drop outs. | |
Participants | Patients with a single tooth to be replaced by a single‐tooth implant in the maxillary anterior and premolar region. Adults treated at the ACTA, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Patients were excluded if were medically compromised, if smokers, or if a primary implant stability of 25 Ncm could not be achieved. 25 patients enrolled in each group. | |
Interventions | Immediate (same day) versus delayed (3 months on average) implants after extractions of periapically infected single teeth. Implants were placed 2 mm below the cervical junction of the adjacent teeth. Autogenous bone grafts from the trigonum retromolar or chin region were covered with a bioresorbable collagen membrane (Bio‐Gide, Geistlich AG, Wolhusen, Switzerland) in all patients and the implants were submerged and left healing for 6 months. Single crowns were cemented with temporary cement. All implants were Frialit‐2 Synchro (Dentsply Friadent Ceramed, Mannheim, Germany). | |
Outcomes | Prosthesis failure, implant failure, complications, perimplant marginal bone level changes on intraoral radiographs, pocket probing depth, patient satisfaction, aesthetics assessed by a blinded outcome assessor (interproximal papilla dimensions and mid‐buccal perimplant gingival levels). | |
Notes | ||
Risk of bias | ||
Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
Allocation concealment? | Low risk | A ‐ Adequate |
Methods | 1.5 year postloading, randomised parallel group study. 2 drop outs, 1 from each group for not having paid the treatment. | |
Participants | Patients with a single tooth to be replaced by a single‐tooth implant in the anterior and premolar region of both mandibles and maxillas. Adults treated at the Royal Dental College, University of Århus, Denmark. Patients were excluded if were medically compromised (metabolic diseases, immune deficient or under immune‐suppressive therapy, irradiated, etc.) or if they had insufficient bone to achieve primary stability of the implant. 23 patients enrolled in each group. | |
Interventions | Delayed immediate (10 days on average) versus delayed implants (3 months on average) after extractions of compromised single teeth. Autogenous bone grafting was done when implants threads were exposed at abutment connection for immediate‐delayed implants and at both implant placement and at abutment connection for delayed implants. Implants were submerged and left to heal for about 3 months. Single‐tooth metal‐ceramic crowns were provided. All implants were Osseotite (3i Implamt Innovations Inc., Palm Beach Gardens, FL, USA) | |
Outcomes | Prosthesis failure, implant failure, complications, various bone measures at implantation and abutment connection, perimplant marginal bone level changes on intraoral radiographs, pocket probing depth, patient satisfaction, aesthetics assessed by patients and by an independent experienced prosthodontist (interproximal papilla dimensions and the mid‐buccal gingival level), resonace frequency stability assessed with Ostell, and microbiologic evaluation. | |
Notes | ||
Risk of bias | ||
Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
Allocation concealment? | Low risk | A ‐ Adequate |
Data and analyses
Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
1 Prosthesis failure Show forest plot | 1 | Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
| ||||
2 Implant failure Show forest plot | 1 | Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
| ||||
3 Complications Show forest plot | 1 | Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
| ||||
4 Aesthetics (dentist): interproximal papilla dimension Show forest plot | 1 | Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
| ||||
5 Aesthetics (dentist): position of the perimplant tissues Show forest plot | 1 | Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
|
Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
1 Prosthesis failure Show forest plot | 1 | Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
| ||||
2 Implant failure Show forest plot | 1 | Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
| ||||
3 Complications Show forest plot | 1 | Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
| ||||
4 Patients' perception of how long treatment took Show forest plot | 1 | Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
| ||||
5 Patients' aesthetic perception Show forest plot | 1 | Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
| ||||
6 Patients' general satisfaction of treatment Show forest plot | 1 | Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
| ||||
7 Aesthetics (dentist): interproximal papilla dimension Show forest plot | 1 | Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
| ||||
8 Aesthetics (dentist): position of the perimplant tissues Show forest plot | 1 | Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
|
Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
1 Prosthesis failure Show forest plot | 1 | Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
2 Implant failure Show forest plot | 1 | Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
3 Complications Show forest plot | 1 | Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
4 Aesthetics (dentist): interproximal papilla dimension Show forest plot | 1 | Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
5 Aesthetics (dentist): position of the perimplant tissues Show forest plot | 1 | Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
1 Prosthesis failure Show forest plot | 1 | Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
2 Implant failure Show forest plot | 1 | Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
3 Complications Show forest plot | 1 | Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
4 Patients' perception of how long treatment took Show forest plot | 1 | Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
5 Patients' aesthetic perception Show forest plot | 1 | Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
6 Patients' general satisfaction of treatment Show forest plot | 1 | Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
7 Aesthetics (dentist): interproximal papilla dimension Show forest plot | 1 | Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
8 Aesthetics (dentist): position of the perimplant tissues Show forest plot | 1 | Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |