Premium
A systematic review on survival and success rates of implants placed immediately into fresh extraction sockets after at least 1 year
Author(s) -
Lang Niklaus P.,
Pun Lui,
Lau Ka Yee,
Li Ka Yan,
Wong May CM
Publication year - 2012
Publication title -
clinical oral implants research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.407
H-Index - 161
eISSN - 1600-0501
pISSN - 0905-7161
DOI - 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02372.x
Subject(s) - medicine , implant , cochrane library , dentistry , soft tissue , survival rate , prospective cohort study , surgery , randomized controlled trial
Background Type I immediate implant placement has gained popularity because it may reduce treatment time, number of surgeries and post‐extraction bone loss. However, this is potentially challenged by inadequate keratinized mucosa for flap adaptation and difficulties in achieving primary stability. Moreover, it has been proven that post‐extraction bone loss is an inevitable biological process, which affects treatment outcomes. Objectives To estimate survival and success rates of implants and the implant‐supported prostheses, the prevalence of biological, technical and aesthetic complications, and the magnitude of soft and hard tissue changes following implant placement immediately into fresh extraction sockets. Material and methods An electronic search in MEDLINE ( P ub M ed) and the C ochrane Library from 1991 to J uly 2010 was performed to include prospective studies on immediate implants with a mean follow‐up time of at least 1 year. The survival rates were computed using the STATA statistical software. Weighted means of soft and hard tissue changes were obtained by the inverse variance method. Results A total of 46 prospective studies, with a mean follow‐up time of 2.08 years, were included. The annual failure rate of immediate implants was 0.82% (95% CI: 0.48–1.39%), translating into the 2‐year survival rate of 98.4% (97.3–99%). Among the five factors analysed (reasons for extraction, antibiotic use, position of implant [anterior vs. posterior, maxilla vs. mandible), type of loading], only the regimen of antibiotic use affected the survival rate significantly. Lower failure rates were found in groups that were provided with a course of post‐operative antibiotics. The success of implant therapy was difficult to assess due to scarce reporting on biological, technical and aesthetic complications. Soft tissue changes occurred mostly in the first 3 months after the provision of restoration, and then stabilized towards end of the first year. Marginal bone loss predominantly took place in the first year after implant placement, with a magnitude generally less than 1 mm. Controversy on hard tissue preservation with platform‐switching technique remained unsolved. Conclusions Despite the high survival rate observed, more long‐term studies are necessary to determine the success of implant treatment provided immediately after tooth extraction. Special attention has to be given to aesthetic outcomes.