We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants
Login:
username:

password:

Plattform:

Forgotten password?

Registration

Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 24 (2009), Supplement     30. Oct. 2009
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 24 (2009), Supplement  (30.10.2009)

Supplement, Page 186-217, PubMed:19885446


Clinical and Esthetic Outcomes of Implants Placed in Postextraction Sites
Chen, Stephen T. / Buser, Daniel
Purpose: The aim of this review was to evaluate the clinical outcomes for the different time points of implant placement following tooth extraction.
Materials and Methods: A PubMed search and a hand search of selected journals were performed to identify clinical studies published in English that reported on outcomes of implants in postextraction sites. Only studies that included 10 or more patients were accepted. For implant success/survival outcomes, only studies with a mean follow-up period of at least 12 months from the time of implant placement were included. The following outcomes were identified: (1) change in peri-implant defect dimension, (2) implant survival and success, and (3) esthetic outcomes.
Results and Conclusions: Of 1,107 abstracts and 170 full-text articles considered, 91 studies met the inclusion criteria for this review. Bone augmentation procedures are effective in promoting bone fill and defect resolution at implants in postextraction sites, and are more successful with immediate (type 1) and early placement (type 2 and type 3) than with late placement (type 4). The majority of studies reported survival rates of over 95%. Similar survival rates were observed for immediate (type 1) and early (type 2) placement. Recession of the facial mucosal margin is common with immediate (type 1) placement. Risk indicators included a thin tissue biotype, a facial malposition of the implant, and a thin or damaged facial bone wall. Early implant placement (type 2 and type 3) is associated with a lower frequency of mucosal recession compared to immediate placement (type 1).

Keywords: bone grafts, early implant placement, esthetics, immediate implant, implant survival