Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: dental implants in fresh extraction sockets (immediate, immediate‐delayed and delayed implants)

Esta versión no es la más reciente

Contraer todo Desplegar todo

Referencias

References to studies included in this review

Lindeboom 2006 {published data only}

Lindeboom JA, Tjiook Y, Kroon FH. Immediate placement of implants in periapical infected sites: a prospective randomized study in 50 patients. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontics 2006;101(6):705‐10.

Schropp 2003 {published and unpublished data}

Schropp L, Isidor F, Kostopoulos L, Wenzel A. Interproximal papilla levels following early versus delayed placement of single‐tooth implants: a controlled clinical trial. The International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants 2005;20(5):753‐61.
Schropp L, Isidor F, Kostopoulos L, Wenzel A. Patient experience of, and satisfaction with, delayed‐immediate vs. delayed single‐tooth implant placement. Clinical Oral Implants Research 2004;15(4):498‐503.
Schropp L, Kostopoulos L, Wenzel A. Bone healing following immediate versus delayed placement of titanium implants into extraction sockets: a prospective clinical study. The International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants 2003;18(2):189‐99.
Schropp L, Kostopoulos L, Wenzel A, Isidor F. Clinical and radiographic performance of delayed‐immediate single‐tooth implant placement associated with peri‐implant bone defects. A 2‐year prospective, controlled, randomized follow‐up report. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 2005;32(5):480‐7.

Additional references

Becker 1994a

Becker W, Becker BE, Polizzi G, Bergstrom C. Autogenous bone grafting of defects adjacent to implants placed into immediate extraction sockets in patients: A prospective study. The International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants 1994;9(4):389‐96.

Becker 1994b

Becker W, Dahlin C, Becker BE, Lekholm U, van Steenberghe D, Higuchi K, et al. The use of e‐PTFE barrier membranes for bone promotion around titanium implants placed into extraction sockets: a prospective multicenter study. The International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants 1994;9(1):31‐40.

Block 1991

Block MS, Kent JN. Placement of endosseous implants into tooth extraction sites. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 1991;49(2):1269‐76.

Brånemark 1977

Brånemark PI, Hansson BO, Adell R, Breine U, Lindstrom J, Hallen O, et al. Osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Experience from a 10‐year period. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell Int, 1977.

Cangini 2005

Cangini F, Cornelini R. A comparison between enamel matrix derivative and a bioabsorbable membrane to enhance healing around transmucosal immediate post‐extraction implants. Journal of Periodontology 2005;76(10):1785‐92.

Chen 2004

Chen ST, Wilson TG, Hämmerle CH. Immediate or early placement of implants following tooth extraction: review of biologic basis, clinical procedures, and outcomes. The International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants 2004;19 Suppl:12‐25.

Covani 2004

Covani U, Bortolaia C, Barone A, Sbordone L. Bucco‐lingual crestal bone changes after immediate and delayed implant placement. Journal of Periodontology 2004;75(12):1605‐12.

Elbourne 2002

Elbourne DR, Altman DG, Higgins JPT, Curtin F, Worthington HV, Vail A. Meta‐analyses involving cross‐over trials: methodological issues. International Journal of Epidemiology 2002;31(1):140‐9.

Esposito 1998

Esposito M, Hirsch JM, Lekholm U, Thomsen P. Biological factors contributing to failures of osseointegrated oral implants. (II) Etiopathogenesis. European Journal of Oral Sciences 1998;106(3):721‐64.

Esposito 2006

Esposito M, Grusovin MG, Worthington H, Coulthard P. Interventions for replacing missing teeth: bone augmentation techniques for dental implant treatment. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006, Issue 1. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003607.pub2]

Fugazzotto 2005

Fugazzotto PA. Treatment options following single‐rooted tooth removal: a literature review and proposed hierarchy of treatment selection. Journal of Periodontology 2005;76(5):821‐31.

Gomez‐Roman 1997

Gomez‐Roman G, Schulte W, d'Hoedt B, Axman‐Krcmar D. The Frialit‐2 implant system: five‐year clinical experience in single‐tooth and immediately postextraction applications. The International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants 1997;12(3):299‐309.

Lazzara 1989

Lazzara RJ. Immediate implant placement into extraction sites: surgical and restorative advantages. The International Journal of Periodontics and Restorative Dentistry 1989;9(5):332‐43.

Rosenquist 1996

Rosenquist B, Grenthe B. Immediate placement of implants into extraction sockets: implant survival. The International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants 1996;11(2):205‐9.

Rosenquist 1997

Rosenquist B. A comparison of various methods of soft tissue management following the immediate placement of implants into extraction sockets. The International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants 1997;12(1):43‐51.

Rosenquist 2000

Rosenquist B, Ahmed M. The immediate replacement of teeth by dental implants using homologous bone membranes to seal the sockets: clinical and radiographic findings. Clinical Oral Implants Research 2000;11(6):572‐82.

Ross 1989

Ross SE, Strauss T, Crossetti HW, Gargiulo AW. The immediate placement of an endosseous implant into an extraction wound: a clinical case report using the RosTR system. The International Journal of Periodontics and Restorative Dentistry 1989;9(1):35‐41.

Takeshita 1997

Takeshita F, Iyama S, Ayukawa Y, Suetsugu T, Oishi M. Abscess formation around a hydroxyapatite‐coated implant placed into the extraction socket with autogenous bone graft. A histological study using light microscopy, image processing, and confocal laser scanning microscopy. Journal of Periodontology 1997;68(3):299‐305.

Yukna 1991

Yukna RA. Clinical comparison of hydroxyapatite‐coated titanium dental implants placed in fresh extraction sockets and healed sites. Journal of Periodontology 1991;62(7):468‐72.

Characteristics of studies

Characteristics of included studies [ordered by study ID]

Lindeboom 2006

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

Schropp 2003

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

Open in table viewer
Comparison 1. Immediate versus delayed implants

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

Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Immediate versus delayed implants, Outcome 1 Prosthesis failure.

Comparison 1 Immediate versus delayed implants, Outcome 1 Prosthesis failure.

2 Implant failure Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Immediate versus delayed implants, Outcome 2 Implant failure.

Comparison 1 Immediate versus delayed implants, Outcome 2 Implant failure.

3 Complications Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Immediate versus delayed implants, Outcome 3 Complications.

Comparison 1 Immediate versus delayed implants, Outcome 3 Complications.

4 Aesthetics (dentist): interproximal papilla dimension Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Immediate versus delayed implants, Outcome 4 Aesthetics (dentist): interproximal papilla dimension.

Comparison 1 Immediate versus delayed implants, Outcome 4 Aesthetics (dentist): interproximal papilla dimension.

5 Aesthetics (dentist): position of the perimplant tissues Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 Immediate versus delayed implants, Outcome 5 Aesthetics (dentist): position of the perimplant tissues.

Comparison 1 Immediate versus delayed implants, Outcome 5 Aesthetics (dentist): position of the perimplant tissues.

Open in table viewer
Comparison 2. Immediate‐delayed versus delayed implants

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

Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 Immediate‐delayed versus delayed implants, Outcome 1 Prosthesis failure.

Comparison 2 Immediate‐delayed versus delayed implants, Outcome 1 Prosthesis failure.

2 Implant failure Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 Immediate‐delayed versus delayed implants, Outcome 2 Implant failure.

Comparison 2 Immediate‐delayed versus delayed implants, Outcome 2 Implant failure.

3 Complications Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Analysis 2.3

Comparison 2 Immediate‐delayed versus delayed implants, Outcome 3 Complications.

Comparison 2 Immediate‐delayed versus delayed implants, Outcome 3 Complications.

4 Patients' perception of how long treatment took Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Analysis 2.4

Comparison 2 Immediate‐delayed versus delayed implants, Outcome 4 Patients' perception of how long treatment took.

Comparison 2 Immediate‐delayed versus delayed implants, Outcome 4 Patients' perception of how long treatment took.

5 Patients' aesthetic perception Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Analysis 2.5

Comparison 2 Immediate‐delayed versus delayed implants, Outcome 5 Patients' aesthetic perception.

Comparison 2 Immediate‐delayed versus delayed implants, Outcome 5 Patients' aesthetic perception.

6 Patients' general satisfaction of treatment Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Analysis 2.6

Comparison 2 Immediate‐delayed versus delayed implants, Outcome 6 Patients' general satisfaction of treatment.

Comparison 2 Immediate‐delayed versus delayed implants, Outcome 6 Patients' general satisfaction of treatment.

7 Aesthetics (dentist): interproximal papilla dimension Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Analysis 2.7

Comparison 2 Immediate‐delayed versus delayed implants, Outcome 7 Aesthetics (dentist): interproximal papilla dimension.

Comparison 2 Immediate‐delayed versus delayed implants, Outcome 7 Aesthetics (dentist): interproximal papilla dimension.

8 Aesthetics (dentist): position of the perimplant tissues Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Analysis 2.8

Comparison 2 Immediate‐delayed versus delayed implants, Outcome 8 Aesthetics (dentist): position of the perimplant tissues.

Comparison 2 Immediate‐delayed versus delayed implants, Outcome 8 Aesthetics (dentist): position of the perimplant tissues.

Comparison 1 Immediate versus delayed implants, Outcome 1 Prosthesis failure.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Immediate versus delayed implants, Outcome 1 Prosthesis failure.

Comparison 1 Immediate versus delayed implants, Outcome 2 Implant failure.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Immediate versus delayed implants, Outcome 2 Implant failure.

Comparison 1 Immediate versus delayed implants, Outcome 3 Complications.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Immediate versus delayed implants, Outcome 3 Complications.

Comparison 1 Immediate versus delayed implants, Outcome 4 Aesthetics (dentist): interproximal papilla dimension.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Immediate versus delayed implants, Outcome 4 Aesthetics (dentist): interproximal papilla dimension.

Comparison 1 Immediate versus delayed implants, Outcome 5 Aesthetics (dentist): position of the perimplant tissues.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 Immediate versus delayed implants, Outcome 5 Aesthetics (dentist): position of the perimplant tissues.

Comparison 2 Immediate‐delayed versus delayed implants, Outcome 1 Prosthesis failure.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 Immediate‐delayed versus delayed implants, Outcome 1 Prosthesis failure.

Comparison 2 Immediate‐delayed versus delayed implants, Outcome 2 Implant failure.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 Immediate‐delayed versus delayed implants, Outcome 2 Implant failure.

Comparison 2 Immediate‐delayed versus delayed implants, Outcome 3 Complications.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.3

Comparison 2 Immediate‐delayed versus delayed implants, Outcome 3 Complications.

Comparison 2 Immediate‐delayed versus delayed implants, Outcome 4 Patients' perception of how long treatment took.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.4

Comparison 2 Immediate‐delayed versus delayed implants, Outcome 4 Patients' perception of how long treatment took.

Comparison 2 Immediate‐delayed versus delayed implants, Outcome 5 Patients' aesthetic perception.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.5

Comparison 2 Immediate‐delayed versus delayed implants, Outcome 5 Patients' aesthetic perception.

Comparison 2 Immediate‐delayed versus delayed implants, Outcome 6 Patients' general satisfaction of treatment.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.6

Comparison 2 Immediate‐delayed versus delayed implants, Outcome 6 Patients' general satisfaction of treatment.

Comparison 2 Immediate‐delayed versus delayed implants, Outcome 7 Aesthetics (dentist): interproximal papilla dimension.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.7

Comparison 2 Immediate‐delayed versus delayed implants, Outcome 7 Aesthetics (dentist): interproximal papilla dimension.

Comparison 2 Immediate‐delayed versus delayed implants, Outcome 8 Aesthetics (dentist): position of the perimplant tissues.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.8

Comparison 2 Immediate‐delayed versus delayed implants, Outcome 8 Aesthetics (dentist): position of the perimplant tissues.

Comparison 1. Immediate versus delayed implants

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

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. Immediate versus delayed implants
Comparison 2. Immediate‐delayed versus delayed implants

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

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 2. Immediate‐delayed versus delayed implants