Comparison of immediate implant placement in infected and non-infected extraction sockets: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Outcomes of implants placed in sites of previously failed implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The survival rate of implants placed at sites of previous failures including the best treatment strategies remain unclear. This systematic review was performed to assess implant survival and peri-implant health for such cases, including subgroup analyses of immediate versus delayed implant placement and augmentation. Four electronic databases were searched. Meta-analyses including subgroup analyses were performed (PROSPERO CRD42024548610). Out of 1798 records identified, 24 studies were included. The 1-year implant survival rate after replacement was 96.7% (95% confidence interval (CI) 92.8-99.3%), with no significant difference between immediate and delayed placement (P = 0.31) or immediate and delayed augmentation (P = 0.85). Immediate augmentation showed higher overall implant survival (97.6%, 95% CI 93.4-99.9%) compared to delayed augmentation (91.7%, 95% CI 83.4-97.5%), although not statistically significant (P = 0.26). Peri-implant health outcomes, including marginal bone loss, were similar across subgroups. Second implant replacements had lower survival rates than first replacements. Replacement of the failed implant is an appealing treatment option for failed implants, although the implant survival is lower compared to initially placed implants. Immediate implant placement can be done if sufficient bone is present. If insufficient bone remains after removal, immediate augmentation followed by delayed implant placement is recommended.

Soft and hard tissue evaluation for vestibular socket therapy of immediately placed implants in infected and non-infected sockets: a 1-year prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Immediate implant placement using vestibular socket therapy (VST) proved to offer a successful treatment option in compromised sockets. However, the presence of active signs infection complicates immediate implants in sockets with defective labial plates, due to the possible contamination of the implant or the bone graft with existing infected tissues or oral environment via the fistula. This study, therefore, aims to explore the success of immediate implant placement using VST in managing infected compromised sockets.

METHODS

We included 26 age- and sex-matched patients with 41 implants sites. Thirteen patients had 19 infected (group I) and 13 had 21 non-infected type 2 sockets (group N). Both groups were treated using vestibular socket therapy (VST) and a 6-day protocol. Implant survival, changes in facial bone thickness, and mid, mesial, and distal mucosal levels were evaluated 1 year after implant placement. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare both groups. Furthermore, the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to study changes with time within each group. The statistical significance level was set at P < 0.05.

RESULTS

All implants survived; no significant difference was found between groups N and I regarding apical, mid, and crestal bone thickness and soft tissue level, except at the mesial papilla, where the recession was significantly more in group N than in group I. Changes over time were statistically significant in the apical, mid, and crestal bone thickness in both groups. The mean bone thickness gain ranged from 0.85 to 2.4 mm and 0.26-1.63 mm in groups I and N, respectively. Additionally, the mean mucosal recession ranged from 0.29 to 0.51 mm and 0.39-1.47 mm in groups I and N, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Within the limitations of this study immediate implant placement in type II infected sockets using the 6-day protocol and VST achieved 100% implant survival, while maintaining the regenerated facial bone thickness with minimal mucosal recession.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The protocol for this study was registered on clinicaltrials.gov at 3/10/2021 (registration number NCT04787224).

Repeatability and Reproducibility of a Modified Lekholm and Zarb Bone Quality Classification Based on Cone Beam Computed Tomography: An Observatsion Study

Aim

We propose a modified Lekholm and Zarb classification that considers all possible combinations of cortical and cancellous bone to provide parameters that favor greater repeatability and reproducibility.

Materials and Methods

This observational and analytical study consisted of a sample of 50 cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans. Two new types (V and VI), three subtypes to type II (II-A, II-B, and II-C), and two subtypes to type III (III-A and III-B) were added to the original bone quality classification. The new types refer to regenerated bone (type V) and bone with some pathology (type VI). The subtypes are described as type II-A: thick cortical surrounding the abundant cancellous bone with sharp trabeculae throughout the image and presence of small and visible medullary spaces; type II-B: thick cortical surrounding the abundant cancellous bone with predominance of diffuse trabeculae in the basal bone and predominant presence of wide and visible medullary spaces; type II-C: thick cortical surrounding the abundant cancellous bone with predominance of very thick and sharp trabeculae in the basal third as well as presence of small and visible medullary spaces; type III-A: thin cortical surrounding the abundant cancellous bone with sharp trabeculae throughout the image and presence of small and visible medullary spaces; type III-B: thin cortical surrounding the abundant cancellous bone with predominance of diffuse trabeculae and presence of diffuse medullary spaces. Five dental specialists were trained in the use of the modified classification and were provided with CBCT-sectioned images of edentulous jaws for classification. Each specialist classified the images twice at a 7-day interval. The strength of intra-examiner and inter-examiner agreement was measured with Cohen's and Fleiss' kappa index, respectively. In addition, the agreement between both classifications was analyzed. All data were analyzed at a 95% confidence level, considering a P-value <0.05.

Results

According to the modified Lekholm and Zarb classification, an almost perfect intra-examiner agreement was significant (P < 0.05) in all five specialists, with the kappa index [k] ranging from 0.91 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.82-0.99) to 0.95 (95% CI: 0.89-1.00). Furthermore, substantial inter-examiner concordance (k=0.76; 95% CI: 0.73-0.79) was significant (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

The high repeatability and reproducibility of the modified Lekholm and Zarb classification on CBCT suggest its applicability to distinguish between the various combinations of cortical and cancellous bone and help to define treatment appropriately to optimize results.

The Significance of Keratinized Mucosa in Implant Therapy: Narrative Literature Review and Case Report Presentation

Background/Objectives: Implant treatment in patients who require teeth extraction due to periodontitis presents a significant challenge. The consideration of peri-implantitis is crucial when planning the placement of dental implants. The predictability of implant treatment relies on the suitability of both hard and soft tissue quality. The aim of this article is to present a case report demonstrating a secure treatment protocol for implant procedures in patients with periodontitis requiring the extraction of all teeth, soft tissue management targeted at increasing the keratinized mucosa zone, and the provision of a reliable prosthetic solution. The secondary objective is to review the relevant literature regarding the significance of keratinized mucosa surrounding dental implants and its association with the occurrence of peri-implantitis. Case presentation: A 65-year-old female with generalized periodontitis, stage IV grade C and very poor oral hygiene came for treatment and rehabilitation of the lower jaw. CBCT revealed periodontal lesions and labio-lingual ridge dimensions in the region of teeth 34-44 from 8.0 to 10.2 mm. The first surgery included teeth extraction and periodontal lesions enucleation with simultaneous placement of four implants in the positions of teeth 32, 34, 42, 44. The second-stage surgery involved increasing the keratinized mucosa using two free gingival grafts. Conclusions: The present case report described the treatment process of the patient with periodontitis, including immediate implantation in the infected region, soft tissue augmentation using free gingival grafts and the ultimate placement of a bar-retained overdenture for final restoration. After two years of observation, despite questionable hygiene, no symptoms of gingival inflammation were detected. Furthermore, there is limited information in the literature regarding the correlation between inadequate keratinized gingiva and the occurrence of peri-implantitis.

High-Power Laser Application for Immediate Implant Placement in Infected Sites: A Systematic Review

Objective: The purpose of this study was to review the literatures regarding the treatment outcomes of applying laser to the infected sites in immediate implant placement. The review tended to primarily target a question: does applying high-power laser have any positive effect on infected sites in immediate implant placement? Background: Although immediate placement of dental implants has been referred to as a predictable and successful procedure, it is prone to the presence of infection that interferes with the healing process, and triggers the failure of implants. Materials and methods: A thorough electronic database search was conducted on PubMed/Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane library in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Two writers worked separately on screening the eligible studies, assessing whether there was a risk of bias, and extracting the required data. Results: Five out of the 60 studies nominated by the database search matched the inclusion criteria. The studies were carried out on a total of 192 patients with 296 implants in all. Ultimately, the study focused on 245 implants whose infected bed had been already decontaminated and prepared with the help of the high-intensity laser, used either alone or in combination with other approaches before implantation. With only nine failures, the implants inserted in infected and irradiated areas had a 96.3% overall survival rate. Conclusions: Taking the limitations of the review into account, the authors arrived at the conclusion that high-power laser irradiation can be beneficial for immediate implant placement in infected sites.

Risk factors impacting the survival of implants replaced following failure: A retrospective study

AIM

This study aimed to investigate factors influencing the survival of replaced dental implants.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Charts from 2005 to 2021 were reviewed. Replaced implants after removal for the first time were identified. Depending on their survival, the replaced group was divided into the surviving and second-removal groups. Risk factors affecting survival of replaced implants were evaluated considering clustering of multiple implants within patients.

RESULTS

The present study included 464 replaced implants of 370 patients, of which 429 and 35 implants were categorized into the surviving group and the second-removal group. The 5-year survival rate was 90.2 ± 0.18% in replaced implants at sites with a periodontitis history and 97.0 ± 0.15% at sites without a periodontitis history (p = 0.008). The 5-year survival rate was 89.1 ± 0.27% in replaced implants with guided bone regeneration (GBR) at first implant placement and 93.9 ± 0.14% at non-GBR (p = 0.032). The 5-year survival rate was 97.6 ± 0.13% in replaced implants with GBR and 90.3 ± 0.17% in replaced implants without GBR (p = 0.026). In the multivariable analysis adjusted for clinical variables, periodontitis history (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 3.417; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.161-10.055), GBR at first implant placement (aHR = 2.152; 95% CI = 1.052-4.397) and non-GBR at primary implant replacement (aHR = 0.262; 95% CI = 0.088-0.778) were identified as independent risk factors for second implant removal.

CONCLUSIONS

Periodontitis history, GBR at first implant placement and non-GBR at primary implant replacement were identified as risk factors affecting the survival of replaced implants.

Immediate implant placement in compromised sockets: A systematic review and meta-analysis

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Immediate implant placement provides a popular therapeutic option. However, compromised sockets may jeopardize the treatment outcome.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the treatment outcome in terms of the implant survival rate and success parameters of immediate implant placement in compromised extraction sockets.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An electronic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ISI Web of Science up to January 2021. Studies evaluating implant survival rate and main success parameters were included for a qualitative and quantitative analysis (risk ratio and mean difference).

RESULTS

In total, 43 studies with analysis of 4825 sockets were included. Compared with the noncompromised sockets, the compromised group showed no significant differences in implant survival rates (risk ratio=0.992; 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.979 to 1.005; P=.246). No significant statistical differences were found in marginal bone level at ≤12 months (mean difference [MD]=0.033; 95% CI=-0.012 to 0.078; P=.154) or esthetic parameters.

CONCLUSIONS

Immediate implant placement in compromised sites does not appear to decrease the survival and success rates. However, randomized clinical trials with large sample sizes should be conducted to draw a definite conclusion about the efficacy and safety of this treatment protocol in compromised sockets.

Single-rooted extraction socket classification: A systematic review and proposal of a new classification system based on morphologic and patient-related factors

Taxonomy and classification of a disease contributes to facilitating the diagnosis and treatment planning process and simplifies communication between clinicians. The aim of this study was to provide a critical appraisal based on a systematic review of the single-rooted extraction socket (ES) classifications and subsequently, introduce a new classification system combining the cornerstones of the previously proposed systems and based on the latest consensus in implant dentistry. Following the systematic search process in PubMed, EMBASE, and SCOPUS databases 13 ES classifications were detected. The most repeated hard and soft tissue factors in the previous classifications were buccal bone dehiscence, interproximal bone, gingival recession, and soft tissue phenotype. However, there was minimal attention to patient-related factors such as systemic conditions and smoking. Therefore, a new classification system based on the combination of patient-related factors, clinical and radiographical parameters was proposed. This divides an ES into three types. Class I and II sockets are candidates for receiving immediate implant placement and conversely, a class III socket includes a compromised condition that requires multiple-stage reconstruction mostly suitable for standard delayed implant placement with alveolar ridge preservation. Within the limitations of this study, the new classification system not only provides comprehensive inclusion of various crucial parameters in implant placement (such as prediction of future implant position and osteotomy difficulty, etc.) but also, in contrast to the previously introduced systems, is able to classify the ES prior to extraction and also, takes into the account the patient-related factors as the class modifiers following the extraction.

Immediate dental implant placement in post-extraction-infected sites decontaminated with Er,Cr:YSGG laser: a retrospective cohort study

Dental implants placed in fresh extraction alveoli provide several advantages, including shorter treatment periods and improved patient comfort. After a compromised tooth extraction, the Er,Cr:YSGG laser can considerably reduce bacterial concentration. The objective of this controlled study conducted after at least 1 year of follow-up was to compare the use of immediate post-extraction implants in infected sites treated with laser (test group) versus conventional implants in edentulous sites (control group) through an analysis of pre- and post-operative radiographs. The study was based on a series of patients treated between 2014 and 2019, with a 1-year minimum follow-up, and up to over 4 years. An analysis of the clinical history of the treated patients and pre- and post-operative radiographs was performed to evaluate the implant success and to measure the marginal bone level (MBL). Overall, 149 implants were studied. There was only one failure in the test group (1%) and no failures in the control group. The test group gained 0.1 mm of the MBL compared to the baseline, while the control group lost 0.1 mm of the MBL. The difference between the two groups of only 0.2 mm was not statistically significant (P = 0.058). Immediate dental implants in infected sockets debrided and decontaminated using Er,Cr:YSGG laser do not appear to enhance the likelihood of failure; however, peri-implantitis and associated problems must be avoided by following a certain set of protocols and procedures.

Fabrication and Use of a Customized Provisional Composite Abutment in Dental Practice

Introduction

Reducing the time of implant integration and the period of prosthetics is an important task of dentistry since this leads to improved quality of life and successful rehabilitation of the patient. Therefore, currently, there is an intensely increased interest in immediate or early loading of the implant, when certain parameters of primary implant stability in the bone tissue are achieved.

Materials and Methods

The materials used to perform the procedure for placement of a customized provisional composite abutment were a provisional prefabricated abutment with a retention grip for the composite; aluminum oxide powder with a particle size of 27 μm for better adhesion of the composite, with which the retention grip of the provisional abutment is coated; 3M Single Bond Universal light-curing adhesive applied to the provisional abutment; and Filtek Bulk Fill 3M composite including a low-viscosity radiopaque nanocomponent and ytterbium trifluoride filler with a particle size of 0.01–3.5 nm. Methods used in this study were as follows: fabrication technique using the Cervico system for a customized provisional composite abutment; sandblasting of the provisional abutment using the apparatus RONDOFLEX (KERR); light polymerization of low-viscosity composite using Demi Ultra Kerr lamp (luminous flux power not less than 1100 mW/cm²); and radiographic control of the abutment fit in the implant.

Results

The surgical and orthopedic treatment of 20 patients was performed using this technique. The control group consisted of 11 patients with similar pathology, in whose surgery the fabrication of a provisional prosthesis was used. As a result, it was possible to form a gingival profile, in comparison with the control group, to accelerate mucogingival and bone integration, as well as to quickly carry out orthopedic rehabilitation of the patient. The average value of the time required for the final formation of soft tissues for prosthetics in patients in the experimental group was significantly lower than those in the comparison group (p=0.007 and p=0.028, respectively). In most clinical cases, there is no need for surgery on soft tissues, which eliminates the possibility of additional traumas.

Conclusions

The use of a promising technology for the fabrication of a crown on the implant and a customized provisional composite abutment significantly reduced the period of orthopedic rehabilitation of the patient. Immediate implantation with a customized provisional composite abutment completely forms the gingival profile, reduces the risk of microbial contamination in the area of bone formation, minimizes soft tissue ischemia, and accelerates the processes of mucogingival and bone integration around the implant.

Immediate implant placement in fresh extraction sockets

Immediate implant placement (IIP) in fresh extraction sockets exhibits similar survival and success rates to delayed implant placement in healed sockets. Several advantages of IIP involve shortened total treatment time, reduction of the number of invasive surgeries, and subsequent reduction of patient discomfort due to lack of additional surgeries. The major shortcomings in IIP, however, include the inability to obtain early bony support, presence of a gap between the extraction socket and fixture, and the inability to cover the fixture with soft tissue, leading to increased risk of infection and implant loss. When IIP is performed, atraumatic or minimally traumatic extractions, conservation of the septal bone in molars, minimal flap elevation or flapless surgery, bone grafting the gap between the fixture and the extraction socket, and coverage with soft tissue or a membrane must be considered.

Immediate Implant Placement in Non-Infected Sockets versus Infected Sockets: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objectives

The aim of this systematic review is to compare immediate implant placement in infected extraction sockets with non-infected extraction sockets in terms of implant survival and function.

Material and Methods

An electronic search was conducted in PubMed, ScienceDirect, ISI Web of Knowledge and Google Scholar between January 2010 and February 2020. Studies evaluating implant survival rate and main clinical parameters were included for a qualitative and quantitative analysis.

Results

In total, nine studies were included and a pool of 2281 sockets were analysed. Compared with the non-infected group, the infected group showed no significant differences in implant survival rates (risk ratio [RR] = 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.98 to 1; P = 0.08). No significant statistical differences were found in marginal bone level (mean difference [MD] = -0.03; 95% CI = -0.1 to 0.04; P = 0.41), marginal gingival level (MD = -0.07; 95% CI = -0.17 to 0.04; P = 0.23), probing depth (MD = 0.06; 95% CI = -0.24 to 0.36; P = 0.7), modified bleeding index (MD = -0.00162196; 95% CI = -0.09 to 0.09; P = 0.97) and slight but significant changes were seen in width of keratinized gingiva (MD = 0.25; 95% CI = -0.3 to 0.8; P = 0.38) between the groups at the latest follow-up.

Conclusions

There were no significant difference in implant survival rates, marginal bone level, marginal gingival level, modified bleeding index and probing depth between infected sockets and non-infected sockets. However, slight but significant changes were seen in width of keratinized gingiva favouring the non-infected group.

Immediate Implant Placement in Infected Sockets: A Consecutive Cohort Study

Introduction: Immediate placement of implants in a fresh post-extraction socket is an increasingly popular and established treatment option. However, active infection in the extraction site may adversely affect the outcome of this procedure. This study was designed to assess the clinical results of immediate placement of dental implants in infected extraction sockets using a standardized protocol, which included (a) the use of an Er,Cr:YSGG laser for the decontamination of the infected socket prior to implant insertion, and (b) the utilization of an in situ hardening alloplastic bone graft substitute to augment the gap between the implant surface and the labial plate of bone. Patients and Methods: A retrospective record review was used to identify 68 patients who had implants placed as per the described protocol. A total of 126 implants were placed in 68 patients (65 implants in the maxilla, 61 implants in the mandible). The implants were loaded 136 ± 73 days (mean ± standard deviation; range: 37–400 days) after implant placement. Eight patients (16 implants) were subsequently lost to follow up. Results: 105 of the 110 implants (95.45%) placed immediately in the infected sites using the described protocol survived after prosthetic loading. Conclusion: Immediate implant placement in previously infected sites using the protocols mentioned in our study with laser decontamination of the socket, grafting with an in situ hardening alloplastic bone graft material and non-submerged healing shows a similar survival rate to the published success rates for immediate implants placed in non-infected sites.

Annual review of selected scientific literature: A report of the Committee on Scientific Investigation of the American Academy of Restorative Dentistry

This comprehensive review of the 2018 dental literature is provided to inform busy dentists about progress in the profession. Developed by the Committee on Scientific Investigation of the American Academy of Restorative Dentistry, each author brings discipline-specific expertise to one of the 8 sections of the report including (1) prosthodontics; (2) periodontics, alveolar bone, and peri-implant tissues; (3) implant dentistry; (4) dental materials and therapeutics; (5) occlusion and temporomandibular disorders; (6) sleep-related breathing disorders; (7) oral medicine and oral and maxillofacial surgery; and (8) dental caries and cariology. The report targets important information that will likely influence day-to-day treatment decisions. Each review is not intended to stand alone but to update interested readers so that they may visit source materials if greater detail is desired. As the profession continues its march toward evidence-based clinical decision-making, an already voluminous library of potentially valuable dental literature continues to grow. It is the intention of this review and its authors to provide assistance in navigating the extensive dental literature published in 2018. It is our hope that readers find this work useful in the clinical management of patients moving forward.

Immediate dental implants placed into infected sites present a higher risk of failure than immediate dental implants placed into non-infected sites: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Alveolar infection is known as a risk factor for implant failure. Current meta-analysis on the theme could not prove statistically that immediate dental implants placed into infected sites have a higher risk of failure than immediate dental implants placed into non-infected sites. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to determine the effectiveness of immediate dental implants placed into infected versus non-infected sites.

Material and Methods

Seven databases were sought by two reviewers. Randomized or non-randomized clinical trials that compared the placement of dental implants into infected versus non-infected sites were eligible for the study. Exclusion criteria were: papers in which the survival rate was not the primary outcome; papers without a control group; studies with less than one year of follow-up; studies whose patients did not receive antibiotic therapy; studies with medically compromised patients; duplicated papers. Risk of bias assessment was performed with the Cochrane Collaboration tool.

Results

Of the 3.253 initial hits, 8 studies were included in both qualitative and quantitative synthesis (kappa=0.90; very good agreement). Forest plot for implant failure showed that immediate implants placed into infected sites presented a statistically significant risk of failure that is almost 3 times higher than when placed into non-infected sites (risk ratio= 2.99; 95% confidence interval: 1.04, 8.56; p= 0.04; 935 implants; i2= 0%). Peri-implant outcomes showed no statistical difference.

Conclusions

Immediate dental implants placed into infected sites presented a statistically significant higher risk of failure than immediate dental implants placed into non-infected sites. Peri-implant outcomes were not statistically affected in this intervention.

Key words:Dental implants, infection, tooth socket, systematic review, immediate placement.