ORAL HEALTH EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE PROGRAM
View the CAT printer-friendly / share this CAT
spacer
Title No Significant Differences in Survival Among Immediate, Early or Conventional Implant Strategies
Clinical Question Following the extraction of an anterior tooth in an adult, is there any difference in success rates between immediately loaded implants and conventionally loaded implants?
Clinical Bottom Line No significant differences in survival were reported in clinical trials comparing immediate, early, or conventional implant strategies. (See Comments on the CAT below)
Best Evidence (you may view more info by clicking on the PubMed ID link)
PubMed ID Author / Year Patient Group Study type
(level of evidence)
#1) 19040585den Hartog/2008Patients who were treated with a single tooth implant in the esthetic zone (teeth 15–25 and teeth 35–45) with natural adjacent teeth.Meta-Analysis
Key results19 longitudinal studies (including randomized controlled trials, clinical trials, cohort-studies, and case series) were included in this systematic review. A meta-analysis showed an overall survival rate of 95.5% [95% confidence interval: (93.0-97.1)] after 1 year. No significant differences in outcome measures were reported in clinical trials comparing immediate, early or conventional implant strategies. However, important parameters as aesthetic outcome, soft-tissue aspects, and patient satisfaction were clearly under exposed.
Evidence Search "Dental Implants"[Mesh] AND "Time Factors"[Mesh]
Comments on
The Evidence
The studies included in this meta-analysis only covered 1 year. Also, esthetic outcome, soft tissue aspects, and patient satisfaction should be considered but were not analyzed.
Applicability Single tooth implant patients in the esthetic zone (teeth 15-25 and teeth 35-45) with natural adjacent teeth.
Specialty/Discipline (General Dentistry) (Oral Surgery) (Periodontics) (Restorative Dentistry)
Keywords Esthetics, dental implants, immediate loading, conventional loading, survival
ID# 530
Date of submission: 02/23/2010spacer
E-mail riggsc@livemail.uthscsa.edu
Author David Earnest
Co-author(s) Chad Riggs
Co-author(s) e-mail
Faculty mentor/Co-author Frank Santos, Jr., DDS
Faculty mentor/Co-author e-mail santosF@uthscsa.edu
Basic Science Rationale
(Mechanisms that may account for and/or explain the clinical question, i.e. is the answer to the clinical question consistent with basic biological, physical and/or behavioral science principles, laws and research?)
post a rationale
None available
spacer
Comments on the CAT
(FOR PRACTICING DENTISTS' and/or FACULTY COMMENTS ON PUBLISHED CATs)
post a comment
by Devish H. Patel (San Antonio, TX) on 04/09/2012
I performed a PubMed search on this question in April of 2012 and I found a more recent publication: PubMed ID: 22282730. This RCT on 106 patients finds fewer implant failures for healed sockets and adds statistically significant evidence showing more minor complications for immediate implant placement.
spacer

Return to Found CATs list