-
Journal of Periodontology Feb 2016Immediate implantation, despite many advantages, carries a risk of gingival recession, papilla loss, collapse of ridge contour, and other esthetic complications. Soft... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Immediate implantation, despite many advantages, carries a risk of gingival recession, papilla loss, collapse of ridge contour, and other esthetic complications. Soft tissue graft placement combined with immediate implantation may be used to reduce these concerns. This review aims to systematically analyze clinical esthetic outcomes of the immediate implant combined with soft tissue graft (IMITG).
METHODS
The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines for systematic reviews were used. The electronic search was conducted using MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) from January 1980 to October 2014. Quality assessments of selected articles were performed. Mid-buccal gingival level, interproximal gingival level, facial gingival thickness, gingival ridge dimension, and width of keratinized gingiva were the esthetic outcomes reviewed. Weighted mean difference of mid-buccal gingival level (WDBGL), papilla index score (WDPIS), and width of keratinized gingiva (WDKG) between initial and last measurements were calculated. Other esthetic outcomes were assessed by the descriptive analysis.
RESULTS
Ten studies with a minimum of 6-month follow-up were included, and reported esthetic outcomes were analyzed. Mid-buccal gingival level (WDBGL, 0.07 mm; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.44 to 0.59; P = 0.12) and interproximal gingival level did not significantly change after IMITG (WDPIS in the mesial site, 0.31; 95% CI = -0.01 to 0.64; P = 0.06; and WDPIS in the distal site, 0.29; 95% CI = -0.06 to 0.65; P = 0.11). Width of keratinized gingiva significantly increased after IMITG (WDKG, 1.27 mm; 95% CI = -0.08 to 2.46; P = 0.04). Facial gingival thickness and gingival ridge dimension could be increased after IMITG.
CONCLUSIONS
Because of the heterogeneity and limited number of selected studies, no conclusive statement could be made regarding the benefit of IMITG on esthetic outcomes. More randomized controlled trials are needed to provide definite clinical evidence.
Topics: Connective Tissue; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants; Esthetics; Gingiva; Gingival Recession; Humans; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26469808
DOI: 10.1902/jop.2015.150383 -
The International Journal of Oral &... 2014To test whether or not immediate loading of single-implant crowns renders different results from early and conventional loading with respect to implant survival,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
To test whether or not immediate loading of single-implant crowns renders different results from early and conventional loading with respect to implant survival, marginal bone loss, stability of peri-implant soft tissue, esthetics, and patient satisfaction.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
An electronic search of Medline and Embase databases including studies published prior to August 1, 2012, was performed and complemented by a manual search. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different loading protocols of single-implant crowns with a follow-up after restoration of at least 1 year were included. A meta-analysis yielded odds ratios (OR) and standardized mean differences (SMD) together with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CI).
RESULTS
The search provided 10 RCTs comparing immediate and conventional loading and 1 RCT comparing immediate and early loading. When assessing the implant survival at 1 year of loading, the meta-analysis of 10 studies found no significant differences between immediate and conventional loading (OR = 0.75; 95% CI: 0.32 to 1.76). The total difference of marginal bone loss during the first year of function between immediate and conventional loading protocols in 7 RCTs did not reach statistical significance (SMD = -0.05 mm; 95% CI: -0.41 to 0.31 mm). There were no significant differences between immediate and conventional loading regarding implant survival and marginal bone loss at 2, 3, and 5 years of loading. Three RCTs comparing the change of papilla level between immediate and conventional loading identified no significant differences. One study investigated the recession of the buccal mucosa after implant placement and found significantly inferior soft tissue loss for immediate loading as compared to conventional loading. Two RCTs investigated the recession of the buccal mucosa after insertion of the definitive crown and found no differences between immediate and conventional loading. The esthetics and the patient satisfaction were assessed in one and two RCTs, respectively. There were no significant differences between immediate and conventional loading.
CONCLUSIONS
Immediately and conventionally loaded single-implant crowns are equally successful regarding implant survival and marginal bone loss. This conclusion is primarily derived from studies evaluating implants inserted with a torque ≥ 20 to 45 Ncm or an implant stability quotient (ISQ) ≥ 60 to 65 and with no need for simultaneous bone augmentation. Immediately and conventionally loaded implants do not appear to differently affect the papilla height during the first year of loading. Due to the heterogeneity of the time point of baseline measurements and contradictory findings in the studies, it is difficult to draw clear conclusions regarding the recession of the buccal mucosa. With respect to the assessment of esthetic outcomes and patient satisfaction, the data available remain inconclusive.
Topics: Female; Humans; Middle Aged; Alveolar Bone Loss; Bone Density; Crowns; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants, Single-Tooth; Dental Restoration Failure; Gingival Recession; Immediate Dental Implant Loading; Mandible; Maxilla; Patient Satisfaction; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors; Torque
PubMed: 24660200
DOI: 10.11607/jomi.2014suppl.g4.1 -
Journal of Clinical Periodontology Apr 2014To review the dental literature in terms of efficacy of soft tissue augmentation procedures around dental implants and in partially edentulous sites. (Review)
Review
AIM
To review the dental literature in terms of efficacy of soft tissue augmentation procedures around dental implants and in partially edentulous sites.
METHODS
A Medline search was performed for human studies augmenting keratinized mucosa (KM) and soft tissue volume around implants and in partially edentulous areas. Due to heterogeneity in between the studies, no meta-analyses could be performed.
RESULTS
Nine (KM) and eleven (volume) studies met the inclusion criteria. An apically positioned flap/vestibuloplasty (APF/V) plus a graft material [free gingival graft (FGG)/subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG)/collagen matrix (CM)] resulted in an increase of keratinized tissue (1.4-3.3 mm). Statistically significantly better outcomes were obtained for APF/V plus FGG/SCTG compared with controls (APF/V alone; no treatment) (p < 0.05). For surgery time and patient morbidity, statistically significantly more favourable outcomes were reported for CM compared to SCTGs (p < 0.05) in two randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs), even though rendering less keratinized tissue. SCTGs were the best-documented method for gain of soft tissue volume at implant sites and partially edentulous sites. Aesthetically at immediate implant sites, better papilla fill and higher marginal mucosal levels were obtained using SCTGs compared to non-grafted sites.
CONCLUSIONS
An APF/V plus FGG/SCTG was the best-documented and most successful method to increase the width of KM. APF/V plus CM demonstrated less gain in KM, but also less patient morbidity and surgery time compared to APF/V plus SCTG based on two RCTs. Autogenous grafts (SCTG) rendered an increase in soft tissue thickness and better aesthetics compared to non-grafted sites.
Topics: Collagen; Connective Tissue; Dental Implants; Gingiva; Gingivoplasty; Humans; Jaw, Edentulous, Partially; Periodontal Diseases; Periodontium; Surgical Flaps; Treatment Outcome; Vestibuloplasty
PubMed: 24641003
DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.12220 -
The Journal of Oral Implantology Oct 2015The aim of the present study was to conduct a systematic review of the literature to compare soft tissue aspects of immediate and delayed implant placement in esthetic...
The aim of the present study was to conduct a systematic review of the literature to compare soft tissue aspects of immediate and delayed implant placement in esthetic areas. This review of literature was conducted in the following databases: MEDLINE (PubMed), Lilacs, Scielo, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). For those studies that met the inclusion/exclusion criteria, the results were analyzed and summarized according to the treatment protocol used for implant placement. The primary parameters taken into consideration were papilla level (PL) and marginal mucosa level (MML) around implants. Four randomized controlled trials (RCT) were selected for analysis, but all were deemed as being of poor quality according to quality assessment. No studies reported any statistically significant differences concerning the soft tissue esthetic parameters analyzed around immediate or delayed implants at any follow-up periods reported. However, PL results seemed to be more reliable than were MML results, due to the PL standardization of the method of analysis, which showed a tendency for poorer results around immediately placed implants. In conclusion, although the results are based on only a few poor quality RCTs, both treatment options for implant placement demonstrated similar outcomes in the esthetic area, especially when PL was considered.
Topics: Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Esthetics, Dental; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 24475930
DOI: 10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-13-00095 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2006Dental implants can be placed in fresh sockets just after tooth extraction. These are called 'immediate' implants. 'Immediate-delayed' implants are those implants... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Dental implants can be placed in fresh sockets just after tooth extraction. These are called 'immediate' implants. 'Immediate-delayed' implants are those implants inserted after weeks up to about a couple of months to allow for soft tissue healing. 'Delayed' implants are those placed thereafter in partially or completely healed bone. The advantages of immediate implants are that treatment time can be shortened and that bone height might be maintained thus possibly improving the aesthetic results. The potential disadvantages are an increased risk of infection and failures of the immediately placed implants.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate success, function, complications and patient satisfaction between 'immediate', 'immediate-delayed' and 'delayed' implants.
SEARCH STRATEGY
The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. Several dental journals were handsearched. The bibliographies of review articles were checked, and personal references were searched. More than 55 implant manufacturing companies were also contacted. Last electronic search was conducted on 7 August 2006.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and preference RCT evaluating immediate, immediate-delayed, and delayed implants, reporting the outcome of the interventions to at least 1 year after functional loading.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were conducted independently and in duplicate. Authors were contacted for any missing information. Results were expressed as random-effects models using mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The statistical unit of the analysis was the patient.
MAIN RESULTS
Two RCTs were included. One RCT compared immediate implants placed in periapical infected sites versus delayed implants in 50 patients and after 1 year found no statistically significant differences. The second RCT compared immediate-delayed versus immediate implants in 46 patients. After 1 year and a half there were no statistically significant differences for prosthesis and implant failures, complications, aesthetics assessed by the patient and the papilla height assessed by the dentist. However, patients in the delayed group perceiving the period between tooth extraction and insertion of the crown significantly longer than patients in the immediate-delayed group, mean difference of VAS -20.30 (95% CI -33.36 to -7.24). There was also statistically significantly higher patient satisfaction in the immediate-delayed group, mean difference (VAS) -6.51 (95% CI -12.63 to -0.39). An independent blinded assessor judged the level of the perimplant marginal mucosa in relation to that of the adjacent teeth as more appropriate in the immediate-delayed group, with risk ratio (RR) 1.68 (95% CI 1.04 to 2.72).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Despite that the evidence is derived from only two RCTs with a limited number of patients, it is possible to suggest that immediate implants and immediate-delayed implants may offer some advantages over conventional implants in healed sites in terms of patient satisfaction and aesthetics possibly by preserving alveolar bone. Immediate implants can work and are able to shorten treatment periods, however properly designed RCTs are still needed to fully evaluate the potential advantages and risks of this treatment modality since more complications and failures may occur.
Topics: Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants; Humans; Patient Satisfaction; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors; Tooth Extraction
PubMed: 17054267
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005968.pub2