|
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) 19040585 | den Hartog/2008 | Patients 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 results | 19 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: |
02/23/2010 |
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 | |
|
Comments and Evidence-Based Updates on the CAT
(FOR PRACTICING DENTISTS', FACULTY, RESIDENTS and/or STUDENTS 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. | |
|
|