Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Clinical and esthetic outcomes of immediate implant placement compared to alveolar ridge preservation: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Clinical and esthetic outcomes of immediate implant placement compared to alveolar ridge preservation: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Do you wish to request the book?
Clinical and esthetic outcomes of immediate implant placement compared to alveolar ridge preservation: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Clinical and esthetic outcomes of immediate implant placement compared to alveolar ridge preservation: a systematic review and meta-analysis
2021
Overview
Aim
The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the efficacy of immediate implant placement (IIP) compared to implants placed after alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) in terms of clinical, esthetic, and patient-reported outcomes.
Methods
A manual and electronic search (National Library of Medicine) was performed for controlled clinical trials, with at least 12 months of follow-up. Primary outcome variable was implant survival and secondary outcomes were marginal bone level (MBL) (change), pink esthetic score (PES), mid-facial mucosal level (change), papilla index score, complications, and patient-reported outcomes.
Results
A total of 10 publications were included (7 randomized clinical trials and 3 controlled clinical trials). The results from the meta-analyses showed that survival rate was significantly lower in the IIP group compared to ARP group [RR = 0.33; 95% CI (0.14; 0.78);
p
= 0.01]. No significant differences between the two groups were observed regarding radiographic MBL, PES scores, or mid-facial mucosal level (
p
> 0.05).
Conclusion
The results from this systematic review and meta-analysis showed that IIP had lower survival rates and similar esthetic results when compared to ARP.
Clinical relevance
Clinicians should weigh the benefits and disadvantages of each intervention to select the optimal timing of implant placement.
