Limited evidence suggests that the immediate placement of dental implants into infected sites versus non-infected sites in the esthetic zone show comparable clinical results

Journal of Evidence Based Dental Practice

Summary

Selection Criteria

A thorough search was conducted between January 2009 and October 2017 in the PubMed, ISI Web of Knowledge, and Cochrane Library databases along with cross-checking of the identified article references. Clinical trials that were published in English and included a follow-up period of at least 1 year were selected.

The titles and abstracts for eligible papers were screened by 2 reviewers. Full text was assessed when the studies met the eligibility criteria. Studies were included after agreement or, in cases of disagreement, consensus was reached through discussion among the authors.

Key Study Factor

The clinical trials compared the immediate implant placement in healthy versus periapically or periodontally infected sites in the esthetic zone.

Main Outcome Measure

Implant failure rates, bone level changes, and gingiva level changes.

Main Results

Of 31 articles selected, 9 articles were included in this review and 22 articles were excluded. Nine studies reported implant failure rate; 6 studies were conducted to assess the outcome of immediately placed implants in sockets with or without periapical pathology. In 1 study, the prognosis for immediate dental implants placed in fresh sockets with or without periodontal lesions was investigated. The other 2 studies analyzed the treatment outcomes of immediate implant placement in sites demonstrating periodontal or periapical pathology. Clinical parameters such as bone levels and gingival esthetics were assessed in 4 studies.

A total of 1735 participants (infected group n = 758; non-infected group n = 977) were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled data showed non-statistically significant differences between the failures rates of the infected and noninfected groups (relative risk [RR] = 1.68, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87 to 3.26; P .124). Similarly, non-statistically significant differences were found in bone and gingiva level changes between the 2 groups at all follow-up time points.