|
1
|
Salgado-Peralvo AO, Garcia-Sanchez A, Kewalramani N, Barone A, Martínez-González JM, Velasco-Ortega E, López-López J, Kaiser-Cifuentes R, Guerra F, Matos-Garrido N, Moreno-Muñoz J, Núñez-Márquez E, Ortiz-García I, Jiménez-Guerra Á, Monsalve-Guil L. Consensus Report on Preventive Antibiotic Therapy in Dental Implant Procedures: Summary of Recommendations from the Spanish Society of Implants. Antibiotics (Basel) 2022; 11:antibiotics11050655. [PMID: 35625298 PMCID: PMC9138127 DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics11050655] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/19/2022] [Revised: 05/11/2022] [Accepted: 05/12/2022] [Indexed: 12/10/2022] Open
Abstract
Current patterns of preventive antibiotic prescribing are encouraging the spread of antimicrobial resistance. Recently, the Spanish Society of Implants (SEI) developed the first clinical practice guidelines published to date, providing clear guidelines on how to prescribe responsible and informed preventive antibiotic therapy (PAT) based on the available scientific evidence on dental implant treatments (DIs). The present document aims to summarise and disseminate the recommendations established by this expert panel. These were based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Studies were analysed using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) checklist templates and ranked according to their level of evidence. They were then assigned a level of recommendation using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system (GRADE). Guidelines were established on the type of PAT, antibiotic and dosage of administration in the placement of DIs without anatomical constraints, in bone augmentation with the placement of DIs in one or two stages, placement of immediate DIs, sinus elevations, implant prosthetic phase, as well as recommendations in patients allergic to penicillin. Therefore, the PAT must be adapted to the type of implant procedure to be performed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Angel-Orión Salgado-Peralvo
- Department of Dental Clinical Specialties, Faculty of Dentistry, Complutense University of Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain;
- Science Committee for Antibiotic Research of Spanish Society of Implants (SEI—Sociedad Española de Implantes), 28020 Madrid, Spain; (N.K.); (A.B.); (E.V.-O.); (J.L.-L.); (R.K.-C.); (F.G.); (N.M.-G.); (J.M.-M.); (E.N.-M.); (I.O.-G.); (L.M.-G.)
- Correspondence: (A.-O.S.-P.); (Á.J.-G.)
| | - Alvaro Garcia-Sanchez
- Department of Oral Health and Diagnostic Sciences, School of Dental Medicine, University of Connecticut Health, Farmington, CT 06030, USA;
| | - Naresh Kewalramani
- Science Committee for Antibiotic Research of Spanish Society of Implants (SEI—Sociedad Española de Implantes), 28020 Madrid, Spain; (N.K.); (A.B.); (E.V.-O.); (J.L.-L.); (R.K.-C.); (F.G.); (N.M.-G.); (J.M.-M.); (E.N.-M.); (I.O.-G.); (L.M.-G.)
- Department of Nursery and Stomatology, Faculty of Dentistry, Rey Juan Carlos University, 28922 Madrid, Spain
| | - Antonio Barone
- Science Committee for Antibiotic Research of Spanish Society of Implants (SEI—Sociedad Española de Implantes), 28020 Madrid, Spain; (N.K.); (A.B.); (E.V.-O.); (J.L.-L.); (R.K.-C.); (F.G.); (N.M.-G.); (J.M.-M.); (E.N.-M.); (I.O.-G.); (L.M.-G.)
- Department of Surgical, Medical and Molecular Pathology and Critical Areas, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Pisa, 56126 Pisa, Italy
| | - Jose-María Martínez-González
- Department of Dental Clinical Specialties, Faculty of Dentistry, Complutense University of Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain;
- Science Committee for Antibiotic Research of Spanish Society of Implants (SEI—Sociedad Española de Implantes), 28020 Madrid, Spain; (N.K.); (A.B.); (E.V.-O.); (J.L.-L.); (R.K.-C.); (F.G.); (N.M.-G.); (J.M.-M.); (E.N.-M.); (I.O.-G.); (L.M.-G.)
| | - Eugenio Velasco-Ortega
- Science Committee for Antibiotic Research of Spanish Society of Implants (SEI—Sociedad Española de Implantes), 28020 Madrid, Spain; (N.K.); (A.B.); (E.V.-O.); (J.L.-L.); (R.K.-C.); (F.G.); (N.M.-G.); (J.M.-M.); (E.N.-M.); (I.O.-G.); (L.M.-G.)
- Department of Stomatology, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Seville, 41009 Seville, Spain
| | - José López-López
- Science Committee for Antibiotic Research of Spanish Society of Implants (SEI—Sociedad Española de Implantes), 28020 Madrid, Spain; (N.K.); (A.B.); (E.V.-O.); (J.L.-L.); (R.K.-C.); (F.G.); (N.M.-G.); (J.M.-M.); (E.N.-M.); (I.O.-G.); (L.M.-G.)
- Department of Odontostomatology, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Barcelona, 08907 Barcelona, Spain
| | - Rodrigo Kaiser-Cifuentes
- Science Committee for Antibiotic Research of Spanish Society of Implants (SEI—Sociedad Española de Implantes), 28020 Madrid, Spain; (N.K.); (A.B.); (E.V.-O.); (J.L.-L.); (R.K.-C.); (F.G.); (N.M.-G.); (J.M.-M.); (E.N.-M.); (I.O.-G.); (L.M.-G.)
- Faculty of Dentistry, Finis Terrae University, Santiago de Chile 7501015, Chile
| | - Fernando Guerra
- Science Committee for Antibiotic Research of Spanish Society of Implants (SEI—Sociedad Española de Implantes), 28020 Madrid, Spain; (N.K.); (A.B.); (E.V.-O.); (J.L.-L.); (R.K.-C.); (F.G.); (N.M.-G.); (J.M.-M.); (E.N.-M.); (I.O.-G.); (L.M.-G.)
- Faculty of Dental Medicine, University of Coimbra, 3000-075 Coimbra, Portugal
| | - Nuno Matos-Garrido
- Science Committee for Antibiotic Research of Spanish Society of Implants (SEI—Sociedad Española de Implantes), 28020 Madrid, Spain; (N.K.); (A.B.); (E.V.-O.); (J.L.-L.); (R.K.-C.); (F.G.); (N.M.-G.); (J.M.-M.); (E.N.-M.); (I.O.-G.); (L.M.-G.)
- Department of Stomatology, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Seville, 41009 Seville, Spain
| | - Jesús Moreno-Muñoz
- Science Committee for Antibiotic Research of Spanish Society of Implants (SEI—Sociedad Española de Implantes), 28020 Madrid, Spain; (N.K.); (A.B.); (E.V.-O.); (J.L.-L.); (R.K.-C.); (F.G.); (N.M.-G.); (J.M.-M.); (E.N.-M.); (I.O.-G.); (L.M.-G.)
- Department of Stomatology, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Seville, 41009 Seville, Spain
| | - Enrique Núñez-Márquez
- Science Committee for Antibiotic Research of Spanish Society of Implants (SEI—Sociedad Española de Implantes), 28020 Madrid, Spain; (N.K.); (A.B.); (E.V.-O.); (J.L.-L.); (R.K.-C.); (F.G.); (N.M.-G.); (J.M.-M.); (E.N.-M.); (I.O.-G.); (L.M.-G.)
- Department of Stomatology, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Seville, 41009 Seville, Spain
| | - Iván Ortiz-García
- Science Committee for Antibiotic Research of Spanish Society of Implants (SEI—Sociedad Española de Implantes), 28020 Madrid, Spain; (N.K.); (A.B.); (E.V.-O.); (J.L.-L.); (R.K.-C.); (F.G.); (N.M.-G.); (J.M.-M.); (E.N.-M.); (I.O.-G.); (L.M.-G.)
- Department of Stomatology, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Seville, 41009 Seville, Spain
| | - Álvaro Jiménez-Guerra
- Science Committee for Antibiotic Research of Spanish Society of Implants (SEI—Sociedad Española de Implantes), 28020 Madrid, Spain; (N.K.); (A.B.); (E.V.-O.); (J.L.-L.); (R.K.-C.); (F.G.); (N.M.-G.); (J.M.-M.); (E.N.-M.); (I.O.-G.); (L.M.-G.)
- Department of Stomatology, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Seville, 41009 Seville, Spain
- Correspondence: (A.-O.S.-P.); (Á.J.-G.)
| | - Loreto Monsalve-Guil
- Science Committee for Antibiotic Research of Spanish Society of Implants (SEI—Sociedad Española de Implantes), 28020 Madrid, Spain; (N.K.); (A.B.); (E.V.-O.); (J.L.-L.); (R.K.-C.); (F.G.); (N.M.-G.); (J.M.-M.); (E.N.-M.); (I.O.-G.); (L.M.-G.)
- Department of Stomatology, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Seville, 41009 Seville, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
|
2
|
Salgado-Peralvo AO, Peña-Cardelles JF, Kewalramani N, Mateos-Moreno MV, Jiménez-Guerra Á, Velasco-Ortega E, Uribarri A, Moreno-Muñoz J, Ortiz-García I, Núñez-Márquez E, Monsalve-Guil L. Preventive Antibiotic Therapy in the Placement of Immediate Implants: A Systematic Review. Antibiotics (Basel) 2021; 11:antibiotics11010005. [PMID: 35052882 PMCID: PMC8773177 DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics11010005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/01/2021] [Revised: 11/21/2021] [Accepted: 12/20/2021] [Indexed: 11/23/2022] Open
Abstract
Immediate implants present a high risk of early failure. To avoid this, preventive antibiotics (PAs) are prescribed; however, their inappropriate administration leads to antimicrobial resistance. The present study aims to clarify whether the prescription of PAs reduces the rate of early failure of immediate implants and to establish guidelines to avoid the overprescription of these drugs. An electronic search of the MEDLINE database (via PubMed), Web of Science, Scopus, LILACS and OpenGrey was carried out. The criteria described in the PRISMA® statement were used. The search was temporarily restricted from 2010 to 2021. The risk of bias was analysed using the SIGN Methodological Assessment Checklist for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and the JBI Prevalence Critical Appraisal Tool. After searching, eight studies were included that met the established criteria. With the limitations of this study, it can be stated that antibiotic prescription in immediate implants reduces the early failure rate. Preoperative administration of 2–3 g amoxicillin one hour before surgery followed by 500 mg/8 h for five to seven days is recommended. It is considered prudent to avoid the use of clindamycin in favour of azithromycin, clarithromycin or metronidazole in penicillin allergy patients until further studies are conducted.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Angel-Orión Salgado-Peralvo
- Department of Stomatology, University of Seville, 41009 Seville, Spain; (Á.J.-G.); (E.V.-O.); (J.M.-M.); (I.O.-G.); (E.N.-M.); (L.M.-G.)
- Science Committee for Antibiotic Research of Spanish Society of Implants (SEI—Sociedad Española de Implantes), 28020 Madrid, Spain; (J.-F.P.-C.); (N.K.)
- Correspondence:
| | - Juan-Francisco Peña-Cardelles
- Science Committee for Antibiotic Research of Spanish Society of Implants (SEI—Sociedad Española de Implantes), 28020 Madrid, Spain; (J.-F.P.-C.); (N.K.)
- Department of Basic Health Sciences, Rey Juan Carlos University, 28922 Madrid, Spain;
| | - Naresh Kewalramani
- Science Committee for Antibiotic Research of Spanish Society of Implants (SEI—Sociedad Española de Implantes), 28020 Madrid, Spain; (J.-F.P.-C.); (N.K.)
- Department of Nursery and Stomatology, Rey Juan Carlos University, 28922 Madrid, Spain
| | - María-Victoria Mateos-Moreno
- Department of Clinical Specialties, Faculty of Dentistry, Complutense University of Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain;
| | - Álvaro Jiménez-Guerra
- Department of Stomatology, University of Seville, 41009 Seville, Spain; (Á.J.-G.); (E.V.-O.); (J.M.-M.); (I.O.-G.); (E.N.-M.); (L.M.-G.)
- Science Committee for Antibiotic Research of Spanish Society of Implants (SEI—Sociedad Española de Implantes), 28020 Madrid, Spain; (J.-F.P.-C.); (N.K.)
| | - Eugenio Velasco-Ortega
- Department of Stomatology, University of Seville, 41009 Seville, Spain; (Á.J.-G.); (E.V.-O.); (J.M.-M.); (I.O.-G.); (E.N.-M.); (L.M.-G.)
- Science Committee for Antibiotic Research of Spanish Society of Implants (SEI—Sociedad Española de Implantes), 28020 Madrid, Spain; (J.-F.P.-C.); (N.K.)
| | - Andrea Uribarri
- Department of Basic Health Sciences, Rey Juan Carlos University, 28922 Madrid, Spain;
| | - Jesús Moreno-Muñoz
- Department of Stomatology, University of Seville, 41009 Seville, Spain; (Á.J.-G.); (E.V.-O.); (J.M.-M.); (I.O.-G.); (E.N.-M.); (L.M.-G.)
- Science Committee for Antibiotic Research of Spanish Society of Implants (SEI—Sociedad Española de Implantes), 28020 Madrid, Spain; (J.-F.P.-C.); (N.K.)
| | - Iván Ortiz-García
- Department of Stomatology, University of Seville, 41009 Seville, Spain; (Á.J.-G.); (E.V.-O.); (J.M.-M.); (I.O.-G.); (E.N.-M.); (L.M.-G.)
- Science Committee for Antibiotic Research of Spanish Society of Implants (SEI—Sociedad Española de Implantes), 28020 Madrid, Spain; (J.-F.P.-C.); (N.K.)
| | - Enrique Núñez-Márquez
- Department of Stomatology, University of Seville, 41009 Seville, Spain; (Á.J.-G.); (E.V.-O.); (J.M.-M.); (I.O.-G.); (E.N.-M.); (L.M.-G.)
- Science Committee for Antibiotic Research of Spanish Society of Implants (SEI—Sociedad Española de Implantes), 28020 Madrid, Spain; (J.-F.P.-C.); (N.K.)
| | - Loreto Monsalve-Guil
- Department of Stomatology, University of Seville, 41009 Seville, Spain; (Á.J.-G.); (E.V.-O.); (J.M.-M.); (I.O.-G.); (E.N.-M.); (L.M.-G.)
- Science Committee for Antibiotic Research of Spanish Society of Implants (SEI—Sociedad Española de Implantes), 28020 Madrid, Spain; (J.-F.P.-C.); (N.K.)
| |
Collapse
|
|
3
|
Implant Periapical Lesion: A Narrative Review. TECHNOLOGIES 2021. [DOI: 10.3390/technologies9030065] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Abstract
Implant periapical lesion (IPL) is an infectious-inflammatory alteration surrounding an implant apex. It is a multifactorial disease that may ultimately cause implant failure. The diagnosis of IPL is based on examination of clinical manifestations and apical radiolucency. Many etiologies have been attributed to IPL, including preexisting microbial pathology and surgical trauma. Moreover, many systems have been used to classify IPL based on different parameters. To date, non-surgical and surgical treatment, as well as removal of failed implants, have been considered to successfully manage IPL. However, prevention of IPL surpasses all modes of treatment. An increased number of IPL cases are expected as implants have become standard for tooth replacement in dentate arches. Therefore, it is necessary to understand IPL more comprehensively. Herein, an introduction to IPL, including its etiology, diagnosis, classification, treatment, and prevention, has been undertaken.
Collapse
|
|
4
|
Saleh MHA, Khurshid H, Travan S, Sinjab K, Bushahri A, Wang HL. Incidence of retrograde peri-implantitis in sites with previous apical surgeries: A retrospective study. J Periodontol 2020; 92:54-61. [PMID: 32452035 DOI: 10.1002/jper.20-0056] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/28/2020] [Revised: 03/21/2020] [Accepted: 03/26/2020] [Indexed: 12/20/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Retrograde peri-implantitis (RPI) is a rapidly progressing periapical infection that forms around the implant apex. It is usually associated with sites adjacent to teeth with apical lesions; previous endodontic failures, retained root fragments, etc. This study aimed to study the incidence of RPI in sites with a history of apical surgeries. METHODS Patients with sites treated for both apicoectomy and implant placement presenting to the University of Michigan School of Dentistry from 2001 to 2016 were screened. A total of 502 apicoectomies were performed, only 25 of these fit the predetermined eligibility criteria and were thus included in this retrospective analysis. RESULTS Implants that were placed in sites with a previous apical surgery had a cumulative survival rate of 92%. The incidence of peri-implantitis was 8%, while the incidence of RPI was 20%. There was an increased trend for RPI in cases where the cause of extraction was persistent apical periodontitis (35.7%), but this increase didn't reach the level of statistical significance (P = 0.061). CONCLUSION Implants placed in sites with previous apical surgery are not at an increased risk of implant failure or RPI.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Muhammad H A Saleh
- Department of Periodontics and Oral Medicine, University of Michigan School of Dentistry, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.,Department of Periodontics, University of Louisville School of Dentistry, Louisville, KY, USA
| | - Hadiya Khurshid
- Department of Periodontics and Oral Medicine, University of Michigan School of Dentistry, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Suncica Travan
- Department of Periodontics and Oral Medicine, University of Michigan School of Dentistry, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Khaled Sinjab
- Department of Periodontics and Oral Medicine, University of Michigan School of Dentistry, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Ali Bushahri
- Department of Periodontics and Oral Medicine, University of Michigan School of Dentistry, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Hom-Lay Wang
- Department of Periodontics and Oral Medicine, University of Michigan School of Dentistry, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| |
Collapse
|
|
5
|
Amin V, Kumar S, Joshi S, Hirani T, Shishoo D. A clinical and radiographical comparison of buccolingual crestal bone changes after immediate and delayed implant placement. Med Pharm Rep 2019; 92:401-407. [PMID: 31750442 PMCID: PMC6853050 DOI: 10.15386/mpr-1213] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/14/2018] [Revised: 12/28/2018] [Accepted: 01/31/2019] [Indexed: 11/25/2022] Open
Abstract
Aim The study aims to clinically and radiographically compare the bucco-lingual crestal bone changes after immediate and delayed placement of implants. Methods Two groups that consisted of fifty implants were considered for this study. In group A the implants were placed immediately post extraction, whereas, in group B implants placement were delayed by four to six weeks. All the implants were submerged within the alveoli confines. Bone grafts were only placed if the jumping distance was more than 1.5 mm. Barrier membrane was not placed in any of the cases. Bucco-lingual width was measured at the time of implant placement and during abutment placement after four to six weeks. Primary flap closure was ensured in all the cases. Results Thirty-one implants were placed in the mandible and nineteen were placed in the maxilla. All the implants achieved osseointegration. Immediate implant group showed a mean width of 8.80 mm (SD2.280) at the time of implant placement whereas, 7.60 mm (SD 1.871) after six months. Delayed implant group showed a mean width of 8.40 mm (SD1.673) at the time of implant placement, and 7.40 mm (SD 1.658) after six months. Intragroup showed statistically significant data (P<0.05). When the intergroup comparison of group 1 and group 2 was made at implant placement day and abutment placement day, it was found to be statistically non-significant. Conclusion This study suggests that circumferential defect heals on itself without any guided bone regeneration in both the groups. The data suggests that the healing in both the group were equally good. The equally good results suggest placing the implant immediately post extraction. This saves the cost, time and most importantly the need for an extra surgery.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Viraj Amin
- Department of Periodontology and Implantology, Karnavati School of Dentistry, Karnavati University, Gandhinagar, Gujarat, India
| | - Santosh Kumar
- Department of Periodontology and Implantology, Karnavati School of Dentistry, Karnavati University, Gandhinagar, Gujarat, India
| | - Surabhi Joshi
- Department of Periodontology and Implantology, Karnavati School of Dentistry, Karnavati University, Gandhinagar, Gujarat, India
| | - Tanvi Hirani
- Department of Periodontology and Implantology, Karnavati School of Dentistry, Karnavati University, Gandhinagar, Gujarat, India
| | - Deepak Shishoo
- Department of Physiology, Karnavati School of Dentistry, Karnavati University, Gandhinagar, Gujarat, India
| |
Collapse
|
|
6
|
External Connection versus Internal Connection in Dental Implantology. A Mechanical in vitro Study. METALS 2019. [DOI: 10.3390/met9101106] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
(1) Background: In today's dentistry, implantology has become a therapeutic resource of choice in certain clinical situations. The design of implants has evolved in several aspects since their inception. Dental implants were initially designed with an external hex connection, although due to force transmission and security in the adjustment of the prosthesis, later implants featured an internal hex connection. This study aims to analyse the mechanical properties of two types of implants (an internal connection and an external connection) from the same manufacturer and their different prosthetic components (union screw between implant and prosthetic abutment, and the abutment itself) when subjected to different types of load. (2) Materials and methods: Intraosseous dental implants of similar shape, design and size, although different in type of connection (external vs. internal), were studied. The specifications of the UNI EN ISO 14801 test standard were used, with all determinations being carried out three times. Finally, the dimensional characterisation of the samples analysed after the dynamic load study was carried out, and the values of both study groups were compared by means of the non-parametric Mann–Whitney U test to find statistically significant differences (p < 0.05). (3) Results: For the static characterisation test, we found between 610.9 N and 986.1 N for the external connection and between 1263.6 N and 1324 N for the internal connection (p = 0.011). All of the dynamic load tests were positive and there was no failure in any of the components studied. (4) Conclusions: After the analysis of the samples studied in vitro, satisfactory results were obtained, demonstrating that both connections can support considerable mechanical loads according to international standards (UNI EN ISO 14801).
Collapse
|
|
7
|
Faria-Almeida R, Astramskaite-Januseviciene I, Puisys A, Correia F. Extraction Socket Preservation with or without Membranes, Soft Tissue Influence on Post Extraction Alveolar Ridge Preservation: a Systematic Review. EJOURNAL OF ORAL MAXILLOFACIAL RESEARCH 2019; 10:e5. [PMID: 31620267 PMCID: PMC6788420 DOI: 10.5037/jomr.2019.10305] [Citation(s) in RCA: 26] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/17/2019] [Accepted: 09/05/2019] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
Objectives The purpose of this systematic review was to assess quantitatively and qualitatively the influence of two different factors: membranes and soft tissue graft influence for the extraction socket preservation. Material and Methods A wide-ranging electronic search was performed in six databases up to 30 of November 2018 in order to identify all the clinical and randomized clinical trials performed in humans published with no data restriction. The inclusion criteria were extraction socket preservation with and without membranes or a soft tissue graft in a intact socket with at least six months of follow-up, have more than 12 patients or treat more than 12 sites per group and evaluated at least one of the primary outcomes measures (radiographic measures histological assessment, clinical measures). Results From an initial search of 1524 studies only 6 papers fulfil the inclusion and exclusion criterions. All the six selected papers, presented a wide heterogeneity of treatments used, evaluated variables and observation period that made impossible to recommend any specific techniques and/or material to achieve better results. The limited data found suggest that the used of membrane reveals to achieve better results. It wasn’t possible to observe in any clinical trial that compares the used of soft tissue graft. Conclusions New trials need to be performed in order to identify what specific techniques and/or materials are better to decrease the reabsorption of the socket after tooth extraction. Clinical trials designed to understand when/how the soft tissues grafts influence at the socket preservation is needed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ricardo Faria-Almeida
- Department of Oral Surgery and Oral Medicine, Porto University of Dental MedicinePortugal
| | - Inesa Astramskaite-Januseviciene
- Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Odontology, Medical Academy, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, KaunasLithuania
| | | | - Francisco Correia
- Department of Oral Surgery and Oral Medicine, Porto University of Dental MedicinePortugal
| |
Collapse
|
|
8
|
de Oliveira-Neto OB, Lemos CAA, Barbosa FT, de Sousa-Rodrigues CF, Camello de Lima FJ. 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. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2019; 24:e518-e528. [PMID: 31232386 PMCID: PMC6667019 DOI: 10.4317/medoral.22954] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/31/2018] [Accepted: 02/04/2019] [Indexed: 12/13/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- O-B de Oliveira-Neto
- Department of Morphology, Anatomy Area, Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas, Av. Limeira, 901-Areião, Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brazil, Zip-Code: 13414-903,
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
|
9
|
Velasco-Ortega E, Wojtovicz E, España-Lopez A, Jimenez-Guerra A, Monsalve-Guil L, Ortiz-Garcia I, Serrera-Figallo MA. Survival rates and bone loss after immediate loading of implants in fresh extraction sockets (single gaps). A clinical prospective study with 4 year follow-up. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2018; 23:e230-e236. [PMID: 29476669 PMCID: PMC5911350 DOI: 10.4317/medoral.21651] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/21/2016] [Accepted: 01/21/2018] [Indexed: 12/05/2022] Open
Abstract
Background The aim of this prospective study was to report the outcome of treatment with implants inserted after tooth extraction and immediately loaded. Material and Methods Fifty-six patients with single tooth loss were treated with 116 IPX Galimplant® implants with internal connections and a sandblasted, acid-etched surface. All implants were placed after tooth extraction using a flapless approach without bone regeneration, and they were then immediately loaded with cemented acrylic prostheses. After a period of three months, definitive cemented ceramic prostheses were placed. Patients were examined throughout a total of 4 years of follow-up. Marginal bone loss and survival rates were evaluated using digital periapical radiographs, taking into account clinical variables such as age, gender, smoking, history of periodontitis, etiology of extraction, placement site, diameter, and implant length. The Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis non-parametric tests were used to compare differences between subgroups created based on the different clinical variables identified. Results Clinical results indicate an implant survival and success rate of 97.4%. Three implants were lost. Of the 116 immediate acrylic single crowns initially placed, 113 were replaced with definitive ceramic crowns after 3 months. A total of 77.8% of implants were inserted in the maxilla, while 22.2% were inserted in the mandible. No further complications were reported after the follow-up period (4 years). The mean marginal bone loss was 0.67 mm ± 0.40 mm. No differences were found among the subgroups of study patients. Conclusions This study indicates that dental implants that are inserted after tooth extraction and immediately loaded may constitute a successful and predictable alternative implant treatment. Key words:Dental implants, post-extraction implants, fresh sockets, immediate loading, immediate prostheses, implant dentistry.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- E Velasco-Ortega
- Faculty of Dentistry, University of Seville, C/ Avicena s/n, 41009-Sevilla, Spain,
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
|
10
|
de Oliveira-Neto OB, Barbosa FT, de Sousa-Rodrigues CF, de Lima FJC. Quality assessment of systematic reviews regarding immediate placement of dental implants into infected sites: An overview. J Prosthet Dent 2017; 117:601-605. [DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.09.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/29/2016] [Revised: 09/08/2016] [Accepted: 09/08/2016] [Indexed: 01/08/2023]
|
|
11
|
Zhao D, Wu Y, Xu C, Zhang F. Immediate dental implant placement into infected vs. non-infected sockets: a meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015; 27:1290-1296. [PMID: 26667097 DOI: 10.1111/clr.12739] [Citation(s) in RCA: 28] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 10/08/2015] [Indexed: 11/27/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE This meta-analysis was aimed at assessing whether immediate dental implant placement into infected vs. non-infected sites produced different effects on implant failure risk and marginal bone loss. MATERIAL AND METHODS Relevant studies were identified by searching articles in PubMed, Web of Knowledge, and the Cochrane Library through February 2015 and by reviewing the reference lists of the retrieved articles. When an intervention led to dichotomous outcomes, the outcomes were expressed as risk ratios, whereas continuous outcomes were expressed as mean differences in millimeters; each had a 95% confidence interval. Study-specific estimates were combined using fixed-effects models. RESULTS A total of 1743 articles were identified following the search process. Seven studies were finally included in the meta-analysis, which comprised a total of 1586 implants and 25 failures. Compared to the immediate insertion of a dental implant into a non-infected site, the insertion of an implant into an infected site showed 116% increase in the risk of implant failure, which had borderline statistical significance (risk ratio = 2.16, 95% confidence interval: 0.97, 4.80, P = 0.058; heterogeneity: I2 = 0.0%, Pheterogeneity = 0.997). With regard to marginal bone loss, we observed no statistically significant difference between insertions into infected vs. non-infected sites (mean difference = -0.04, 95% confidence interval: -0.09, 0.02, P = 0.173, heterogeneity: I2 = 0.0%, Pheterogeneity = 0.765). CONCLUSION This meta-analysis suggests that immediately placing a dental implant into an infected site may increase the risk of implant failure. Given the presence of uncontrolled confounders in the studies that were assessed, the results should be interpreted with caution.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dan Zhao
- Department of Prosthodontics, Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.,Shanghai Key Laboratory of Stomatology, Shanghai Research Institute of Stomatology, Shanghai, China
| | - Yaqin Wu
- Department of Prosthodontics, Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.,Shanghai Key Laboratory of Stomatology, Shanghai Research Institute of Stomatology, Shanghai, China
| | - Chun Xu
- Department of Prosthodontics, Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China. .,Shanghai Key Laboratory of Stomatology, Shanghai Research Institute of Stomatology, Shanghai, China.
| | - Fuqiang Zhang
- Department of Prosthodontics, Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China. .,Shanghai Key Laboratory of Stomatology, Shanghai Research Institute of Stomatology, Shanghai, China.
| |
Collapse
|
|
12
|
Montoya-Salazar V, Castillo-Oyagüe R, Torres-Sánchez C, Lynch CD, Gutiérrez-Pérez JL, Torres-Lagares D. Outcome of single immediate implants placed in post-extraction infected and non-infected sites, restored with cemented crowns: A 3-year prospective study. J Dent 2014; 42:645-52. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2014.03.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 28] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/27/2013] [Revised: 03/14/2014] [Accepted: 03/17/2014] [Indexed: 10/25/2022] Open
|