Search

Purpose: This retrospective clinical study aimed to evaluate the implants placed in fresh sockets and investigate the effect of varied oral health conditions and treatment plan details on the clinical and radiographic outcomes. Materials and methods: Fifty-nine participants (102 implants) were included in this study. Four variables, including mean probing depth (PD), mean marginal bone loss (MBL), pink esthetic score (PES), and patient satisfaction, were significant dependent variables, and the effects of independent variables on these four items were studied. The data were analyzed by the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using a statistical software. Results: The mean follow-up period was 4.75 ± 1.74 years, and the mean MBL was 1.21 ± 0.81 mm. The survival rate was 97 %. There were significant effects of the finish line site, keratinized gingival width, and attached gingival width on PD after adjusting the factors. Also, the implant brand, plaque index, and uncemented prosthesis affected MBL significantly. In addition, significant effects of the surgeon, implant brand, and proximal contact on PES were found. Conclusion: More PD was found around restorations with a finish line site > 1.5 mm subgingival. Sufficient attached gingiva was a more effective factor on PD than keratinized gingiva. Implants with more plaque scores showed more MBL.

Objectives: To test the null hypothesis of no difference in the implant failure rates, postoperative infection and marginal bone loss for the insertion of dental implants in fresh extraction sockets compared to the insertion in healed sites, against the alternative hypothesis of a difference., Data: Main search terms used in combination: dental implant, oral implant, resh extraction socket, immediate placement, immediate insertion, immediate implant., Sources: An electronic search was undertaken in July/2014, in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register plus hand-searching., Study Selection: Eligibility criteria included clinical human studies, either randomized or not., Conclusions: The search strategy resulted in 73 publications, with 8,241 implants inserted in sockets (330 failures, 4.00%), and 19,410 in healed sites (599 failures, 3.09%). It is suggested that the insertion of implants in fresh extraction sockets affects the failure rates (RR 1.58, 95% CI 1.27-1.95, P<0.0001). The difference was not statistically significant when studies evaluating implants inserted in maxillae or in mandibles were pooled, or when the studies using implants to rehabilitate patients with full-arch prostheses were pooled; however, it was significant for the studies that rehabilitated patients with implant-supported single crowns and for the controlled studies. There was no apparent significant effect on the occurrence of postoperative infection or on the magnitude of marginal bone loss. The results should be interpreted with caution due to the potential for biases and to the presence of uncontrolled confounding factors in the included studies, most of them not randomized., Clinical Significance: The question whether immediate implants are more at risk for failure than implants placed in mature bone has received increasing attention in the last years. As the philosophies of treatment alter over time, a periodic review of the different concepts is necessary to refine techniques and eliminate unnecessary procedures. This would form a basis for optimum treatment., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)