Standard

The effectiveness of immediate implant placement for single tooth replacement compared to delayed implant placement : a systematic review and meta-analysis. / Cosyn, Jan; Lat, Liesa De; Seyssens, Lorenz; Doornewaard, Ron; Deschepper, Ellen; Vervaeke, Stijn.

In: Journal of Clinical Periodontology, Vol. 46, No. S21, 06.2019, p. 224-241.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Harvard

Cosyn, J, Lat, LD, Seyssens, L, Doornewaard, R, Deschepper, E & Vervaeke, S 2019, 'The effectiveness of immediate implant placement for single tooth replacement compared to delayed implant placement: a systematic review and meta-analysis', Journal of Clinical Periodontology, vol. 46, no. S21, pp. 224-241. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.13054

APA

Cosyn, J., Lat, L. D., Seyssens, L., Doornewaard, R., Deschepper, E., & Vervaeke, S. (2019). The effectiveness of immediate implant placement for single tooth replacement compared to delayed implant placement: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Periodontology, 46(S21), 224-241. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.13054

Vancouver

Author

Cosyn, Jan ; Lat, Liesa De ; Seyssens, Lorenz ; Doornewaard, Ron ; Deschepper, Ellen ; Vervaeke, Stijn. / The effectiveness of immediate implant placement for single tooth replacement compared to delayed implant placement : a systematic review and meta-analysis. In: Journal of Clinical Periodontology. 2019 ; Vol. 46, No. S21. pp. 224-241.

BibTeX

@article{8b163542f6864bd88c09d4b99f4e2889,
title = "The effectiveness of immediate implant placement for single tooth replacement compared to delayed implant placement: a systematic review and meta-analysis",
abstract = "AIM: To compare immediate (IIP) to delayed single implant placement (DIP, ≥ 3 months post-extraction) in terms of implant survival (primary outcome), surgical, clinical, aesthetic, radiographic and patient-reported outcomes (secondary outcomes).MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two reviewers independently performed an electronic search in Pubmed, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane and a hand search to identify eligible studies up to May 2018. Only Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) and Non-Randomized Controlled Studies (NRSs) comparing IIP to DIP with at least one year of follow-up were selected for a qualitative analysis and meta-analysis.RESULTS: The search identified 3 RCTs and 5 NRSs out of 2589 titles providing data on 473 single implants (IIP: 233, DIP: 240) that had been in function between 12 and 96 months. One RCT showed unclear risk of bias, whereas all other studies demonstrated high risk. Meta-analysis showed significantly lower implant survival for IIP (94.9{\%}) as compared to DIP (98.9{\%}) (RR 0.96, 95{\%} CI [0.93; 0.99], p=0.02). All were early implant failures. A subgroup meta-analysis demonstrated a trend towards lower implant survival for IIP when postoperative antibiotics had not been administered (RR: 0.93, 95{\%} CI [0.86; 1.00], p=0.07). This was not observed among studies including the administration of postoperative antibiotics (RR: 0.98, 95{\%} CI [0.94; 1.02], p=0.35). Meta-analyses showed similar probing depth (WMD 0.43 mm, 95{\%} CI [-0.47; 1.33], p=0.35) and aesthetic outcomes as assessed by the pink esthetic score (standardized WMD -0.03, 95{\%} CI [-0.46; 0.39], p=0.88) for IIP and DIP. Data on marginal bone loss were conflicting and highly biased. Soft tissue recession was underreported and available data were highly biased. Patient-reported outcomes were underreported, yet both IIP and DIP seemed well-tolerated.CONCLUSION: IIP demonstrated higher risk for early implant loss than DIP. There is a need for RCTs comparing IIP to DIP with CBCT analyses at different time points and data on midfacial recession with the preoperative status as baseline. In these studies, the need for hard and soft tissue grafting should also be evaluated. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.",
keywords = "Dental implant, delayed, immediate, single, survival",
author = "Jan Cosyn and Lat, {Liesa De} and Lorenz Seyssens and Ron Doornewaard and Ellen Deschepper and Stijn Vervaeke",
note = "{\circledC} 2019 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.",
year = "2019",
month = "6",
doi = "10.1111/jcpe.13054",
language = "English",
volume = "46",
pages = "224--241",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Periodontology",
issn = "0303-6979",
publisher = "Blackwell Munksgaard",
number = "S21",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - The effectiveness of immediate implant placement for single tooth replacement compared to delayed implant placement

T2 - a systematic review and meta-analysis

AU - Cosyn, Jan

AU - Lat, Liesa De

AU - Seyssens, Lorenz

AU - Doornewaard, Ron

AU - Deschepper, Ellen

AU - Vervaeke, Stijn

N1 - © 2019 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

PY - 2019/6

Y1 - 2019/6

N2 - AIM: To compare immediate (IIP) to delayed single implant placement (DIP, ≥ 3 months post-extraction) in terms of implant survival (primary outcome), surgical, clinical, aesthetic, radiographic and patient-reported outcomes (secondary outcomes).MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two reviewers independently performed an electronic search in Pubmed, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane and a hand search to identify eligible studies up to May 2018. Only Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) and Non-Randomized Controlled Studies (NRSs) comparing IIP to DIP with at least one year of follow-up were selected for a qualitative analysis and meta-analysis.RESULTS: The search identified 3 RCTs and 5 NRSs out of 2589 titles providing data on 473 single implants (IIP: 233, DIP: 240) that had been in function between 12 and 96 months. One RCT showed unclear risk of bias, whereas all other studies demonstrated high risk. Meta-analysis showed significantly lower implant survival for IIP (94.9%) as compared to DIP (98.9%) (RR 0.96, 95% CI [0.93; 0.99], p=0.02). All were early implant failures. A subgroup meta-analysis demonstrated a trend towards lower implant survival for IIP when postoperative antibiotics had not been administered (RR: 0.93, 95% CI [0.86; 1.00], p=0.07). This was not observed among studies including the administration of postoperative antibiotics (RR: 0.98, 95% CI [0.94; 1.02], p=0.35). Meta-analyses showed similar probing depth (WMD 0.43 mm, 95% CI [-0.47; 1.33], p=0.35) and aesthetic outcomes as assessed by the pink esthetic score (standardized WMD -0.03, 95% CI [-0.46; 0.39], p=0.88) for IIP and DIP. Data on marginal bone loss were conflicting and highly biased. Soft tissue recession was underreported and available data were highly biased. Patient-reported outcomes were underreported, yet both IIP and DIP seemed well-tolerated.CONCLUSION: IIP demonstrated higher risk for early implant loss than DIP. There is a need for RCTs comparing IIP to DIP with CBCT analyses at different time points and data on midfacial recession with the preoperative status as baseline. In these studies, the need for hard and soft tissue grafting should also be evaluated. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

AB - AIM: To compare immediate (IIP) to delayed single implant placement (DIP, ≥ 3 months post-extraction) in terms of implant survival (primary outcome), surgical, clinical, aesthetic, radiographic and patient-reported outcomes (secondary outcomes).MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two reviewers independently performed an electronic search in Pubmed, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane and a hand search to identify eligible studies up to May 2018. Only Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) and Non-Randomized Controlled Studies (NRSs) comparing IIP to DIP with at least one year of follow-up were selected for a qualitative analysis and meta-analysis.RESULTS: The search identified 3 RCTs and 5 NRSs out of 2589 titles providing data on 473 single implants (IIP: 233, DIP: 240) that had been in function between 12 and 96 months. One RCT showed unclear risk of bias, whereas all other studies demonstrated high risk. Meta-analysis showed significantly lower implant survival for IIP (94.9%) as compared to DIP (98.9%) (RR 0.96, 95% CI [0.93; 0.99], p=0.02). All were early implant failures. A subgroup meta-analysis demonstrated a trend towards lower implant survival for IIP when postoperative antibiotics had not been administered (RR: 0.93, 95% CI [0.86; 1.00], p=0.07). This was not observed among studies including the administration of postoperative antibiotics (RR: 0.98, 95% CI [0.94; 1.02], p=0.35). Meta-analyses showed similar probing depth (WMD 0.43 mm, 95% CI [-0.47; 1.33], p=0.35) and aesthetic outcomes as assessed by the pink esthetic score (standardized WMD -0.03, 95% CI [-0.46; 0.39], p=0.88) for IIP and DIP. Data on marginal bone loss were conflicting and highly biased. Soft tissue recession was underreported and available data were highly biased. Patient-reported outcomes were underreported, yet both IIP and DIP seemed well-tolerated.CONCLUSION: IIP demonstrated higher risk for early implant loss than DIP. There is a need for RCTs comparing IIP to DIP with CBCT analyses at different time points and data on midfacial recession with the preoperative status as baseline. In these studies, the need for hard and soft tissue grafting should also be evaluated. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

KW - Dental implant

KW - delayed

KW - immediate

KW - single

KW - survival

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85067553284&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/jcpe.13054

DO - 10.1111/jcpe.13054

M3 - Article

C2 - 30624808

VL - 46

SP - 224

EP - 241

JO - Journal of Clinical Periodontology

JF - Journal of Clinical Periodontology

SN - 0303-6979

IS - S21

ER -

ID: 44791134