Long-term clinical performance of flapless implant surgery compared to the conventional approach with flap elevation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Comparative efficacy of flapped versus flapless dental implant procedures: A meta-analysis

Objectives

Dental implant procedures are crucial for replacing missing teeth, with various surgical techniques impacting the outcome. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effects of flapped and flapless surgical techniques on implant survival and marginal bone loss (MBL).

Methods

We included clinical studies with at least ten subjects, excluding review articles, editorials, and conference abstracts. Studies were sourced from PubMed, Medline, ERIC, and Wiley, published between 2000 and 2022. Data were analyzed using random-effects models to compare implant survival and MBL between flapped and flapless techniques.

Results

The review identified 21 studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Flapless techniques showed a higher implant survival rate with an approximate survival rate of 98.6% in prospective cohort studies and 95.9% in retrospective studies. MBL was consistently lower in the flapless group, averaging 0.6-2.1 mm, compared to 1.5-3 mm in the flapped group. Low-risk studies demonstrated more consistent and reliable results, supporting the efficacy of flapless procedures.

Conclusion

Flapless implant surgery offers a viable alternative to traditional flapped surgery, showing higher rates of implant survival and less MBL. However, successful outcomes depend on advanced imaging, precise surgical techniques, and adequate training. Further high-quality studies are needed to confirm these findings and refine clinical recommendations.

Effects of flapless and flapped implantations on soft tissue: a systematic review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to systematically compare the effects of flapless and flapped implantations on the surrounding soft tissues of dental implants.

METHODS

Nine databases were searched, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Clinical Trials, OpenGrey, OpenDoar, Scopus, and Ovid, from January 1, 2013, to August 27, 2023. Randomized controlled trials comparing flapless implantation with flapped implantation for restoration of missing teeth were included. Meta-analysis was conducted on studies that met the inclusion criteria by using RevMan 5.3 and Stata 14.0.

RESULTS

A total of 1 245 articles were retrieved, and 17 studies were ultimately included. The results of Meta-analysis showed that flapless implantation resulted in better healing of the soft tissues around the dental implants than flapped implantation. Moreover, flapless implantation showed superior changes in implant success rate [mean difference (MD)=1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.02, 1.10), P=0.004], the width of keratinized gingival changes [MD=0.10, 95%CI (0.00, 0.20), P=0.04], and probing depth [MD=-0.60, 95%CI (-0.67, -0.53), P<0.000 01], with statistically significant differences. The final combined results of modified plaque index [standardized mean difference (SMD)=-0.41, 95%CI (-0.81, 0.00), P=0.05] and modified sulcus bleeding index [SMD=-0.44, 95%CI (-0.78, -0.10), P=0.01] showed superiority over flapped implantation. The papillary presence index was higher in the flapless implantation group than in the flapped implantation group. No statistically significant differences were observed in plaque index and gingival indices changes between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Flapless implantation can achieve higher implant success rate, smaller changes in the width of keratinized gingival, and smaller probing depths than flapped implantation. It also has advantages in terms of modified plaque index, modified sulcus bleeding index, and papillary presence index.

Clinical Effect and Aesthetic Evaluation of Minimally Invasive Implant Therapy

Objective

To explore the clinical effect and aesthetic evaluation of minimally invasive implant in the treatment of dentition defect.

Methods

From April 2020 to May 2021, 60 patients who received implant restoration were collected as the research objects. Randomly divided into minimally invasive surgery group (30 patients) and routine surgery group (30 patients). The postoperative antibiotic use time, pain disappearance time, swelling degree, and pain degree of the two groups were compared. Follow-up for one year, record and compare the success rate of implants and aesthetic evaluation of restoration between the two groups. The evaluation of patients' satisfaction with restoration was collected and compared.

Results

The operation time and antibiotic use time of patients in minimally invasive surgery group were significantly shorter than those in conventional surgery group, and the swelling degree rating was significantly better than that in conventional surgery group, with statistical significance (P < 0.05). The number of patients with no pain (0 degree) and mild pain (degree) in minimally invasive surgery group was significantly higher than that in routine surgery group, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). One year after the repair, the success rate of implants in minimally invasive surgery group was 100.00% compared with that in routine surgery group (93.33%), and the difference was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). The aesthetic effect scores of patients in minimally invasive surgery group were higher than those in routine surgery group in seven items: proximal gingival papilla, distal gingival papilla, labial gingival margin curvature, labial gingival margin height, root convexity, soft tissue color, and soft tissue texture, with statistical significance (P < 0.05). The satisfaction scores of the patients in minimally invasive surgery group in chewing function, comfort, aesthetics, retention function, and language function were higher than those in conventional surgery group, and the differences were statistically significant (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

Minimally invasive implant can achieve the same effect as conventional implant, and it has the advantages of lower postoperative swelling, shorter pain time, better aesthetic effect, and higher satisfaction after restoration.

Comparison between flapless-guided and conventional surgery for implant placement: a 12-month randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

The study was aimed at comparing implants installed with guided and conventional surgery.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Twenty-nine total edentulous patients were selected, and maxillary contralateral quadrants were randomly assigned to static computer-aided implant surgery (S-CAIS): flapless computer-guided surgery, and conventional surgery (CS): flap surgery with conventional planning. Tomography scans were performed at baseline and 10 days after the surgery for deviation measurement, and radiography was done at baseline and after 6 and 12 months, for peri-implant bone level (PIBL) analysis. Peri-implant fluid and subgingival biofilm were collected to evaluate bone markers and periodontal pathogens.

RESULTS

S-CAIS showed less linear deviation at the apical point and the midpoint and less angular deviation (p < 0.05), with greater depth discrepancy in the positioning of the platform (p < 0.05). Higher values of vertical PIBL were observed for the S-CAIS group at baseline (p < 0.05), while lower values of horizontal PIBL were observed for CS (p < 0.05). Bone markers and Tf presented higher levels in CS (p < 0.05). Flapless S-CAIS allowed smaller linear and angular deviations than the conventional technique.

CONCLUSION

However, PIBL was higher in S-CAIS; the conventional technique led to a greater angiogenic and bone remodeling activity by elevating the angiogenic levels and bone markers.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Evaluating the different implant insertion techniques can guide clinical and surgical regarding the accuracy, the release pattern of bone markers, and the peri-implant bone level.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ReBEC-RBR-8556fzp.

Sinus floor elevation and simultaneous implant placement in fresh extraction sockets: a systematic review of clinical data

Combining different procedures to reduce the number of surgical sessions and patient discomfort in implant placement and sinus floor elevation has been recommended, and evidence supports good outcomes. The aim of this study was to review the results of clinical studies on sinus floor elevation through extraction sockets and simultaneous immediate posterior implant placement. An electronic search was carried out in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science to find English articles published in or before August 2020. A manual search was also performed. Titles, abstracts, and the full-text of the retrieved articles were studied. Thirteen studies met our eligibility criteria: 6 retrospective case series, 3 case reports, 2 prospective cohort caseseries, 1 prospective case series, and 1 randomized controlled trial. Overall, 306 implants were placed; 2 studies reported implant survival rates of 91.7% and 98.57%. The others either did not report the survival rate or reported 100% survival. Sinus floor elevation through a fresh extraction socket and simultaneous immediate implant placement appears to be a predictable modality with a high success rate. However, proper case selection and the expertise of the clinician play fundamental roles in the success of such complex procedures.

Comparative evaluation of crestal bone level by flapless and flap techniques for implant placement: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Aim

:To compare the crestal bone level of flapless technique of dental implant placement with the flap technique.

Setting and Design

This Systematic review and Meta-analysis was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items For Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Guidelines and registered with PROSPERO.

Materials and Methods

Electronic search of Medline and Google scholar databases for articles from 2010 till March 2020 was performed. Studies comparing the crestal bone level with both the techniques were included. After the collection of data, the risk of bias was assessed for each study.

Statistical Analysis Used

Meta-analysis was executed using RevMan 5 software version 5.3.

Results

23 studies were included. Statistically significant difference in crestal bone level was found between flapless and flap surgery with mean difference of -0.14 (flapless placement versus flap surgery; 95% CI: -0.24 to -0.03; P = 0.01FNx01). The difference in crestal bone level between the 2 groups was not statistically significant with a mean difference of -0.05(Guided flapless placement versus flap surgery; 95% CI: -0.10 to 0.00; P=0.06). Meta-analysis of the freehand flapless surgery with flap surgery generated a mean difference of -0.20 which was found to be statistically significant (Freehand flapless placement versus flap surgery; 95% CI: -0.37 to -0.03; P=0.02FNx01).

Conclusions

Flapless placement of implant can positively influence crestal bone loss in comparison with conventional flap technique.

Comparison of general and aesthetic effects between flapless and flap techniques in dental implantation: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Information about the aesthetic effects of flapless in implant surgeries is scant. Differences of the survival rate (SR) and crestal bone loss (CBL) between the two techniques were also controversial. Thus, this review was aimed to compare the general and aesthetic effects of flapless and flap approaches in implant surgeries.

Materials and methods

Following the principals of PRISMA, literature databases were searched for the eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the clinical performances of flap and flapless techniques. After that, relevant data of selected studies were pooled and analyzed to compare SR, bleeding on probing (BOP), probing depth (PD), visual analogue scale (VAS), papillae presentation index (PPI), keratinized mucosa (KM) width and CBL between the two techniques.

Results

Fourteen RCTs were included. No significant difference was found in SR (RR = − 0.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) (− 0.05, 0.04)), BOP (OR = 0.40, 95% CI (0.15, 1.02)), KM width (WMD = − 0.42, 95% CI (− 1.02, 0.17)) between two groups. Subgroup analysis revealed that the difference of CBL was insignificant in two groups (WMD = − 0.13, 95% CI (− 0.63, 0.38)). However, flap techniques would lead more peri-implant PD (WMD = − 0.37, 95% CI (− 0.51, − 0.23)). Subgroup analysis also indicated lower VAS scores in flapless group after 1 day (WMD = − 1.66, 95% CI (− 2.16, − 1.16)) but comparable pain experience after 3 days (WMD = − 0.59, 95% CI (− 1.33, 0.16)). Mean difference of PPI (WMD = 0.32, 95% CI (0.28, 0.35)) between the two groups was significant.

Conclusions

The flapless procedure showed a superiority in preserving gingival papillae, reducing postoperative pain and peri-implant PD compared to the flap procedure, while exhibiting comparable effects on SR, BOP, KW width changes and CBL. Flapless technique is more recommended at the ideal soft and hard tissue implanting sites.

A cast-free approach to fabricating an implant-supported interim restoration: A dental technique

A cast-free approach is described to fabricate an implant-supported interim restoration by using the postoperative cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scan to locate the placed implant. A postoperative intraoral scan was aligned to the postoperative CBCT scan through a dental implant planning software program. An attached interim abutment and implant analog complex was then scanned and superimposed on the placed implant in the postoperative CBCT scan. Once the best alignment was achieved, a virtual cast was generated, and an interim restoration with bilateral positioning wings was fabricated on the interim abutment and inserted during the second-stage surgery. This technique offers a cast-free approach to inserting an implant-supported interim restoration immediately after the second-stage surgery to guide the healing of the soft tissue that can minimize chairside time and optimize the clinical workflow.

Guided Surgery with 3D Printed Device: A Case Report

Dental surgeons need in-depth knowledge of the bone tissue status and gingival morphology of atrophic maxillae. The aim of this study is to describe preoperative virtual planning of placement of 5 implants and to compare the plan with the actual surgical results. Three-dimensional (3D) planning of rehabilitation using software programs enables surgical guides to be specially designed for the implant site and manufactured using 3D printing. A patient with 5 teeth missing was selected for this study. The patient's maxillary region was scanned with cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), and a cast model was produced. After virtual planning using ImplantViewer, 5 implants were placed using a printed surgical guide. Two weeks after the surgical procedure, the patient underwent another CBCT scan of the maxilla. Statistically significant differences were detected between the virtually planned positions and the actual positions of the implants, with a mean deviation of 0.36 mm in the cervical region and 0.7 mm in the apical region. The surgical technique used enables more accurate procedures compared with the conventional technique. Implants can be better positioned, with a high level of predictability, reducing both operating time and patient discomfort.