Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 31 (2016), No. 6 22. Nov. 2016
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 31 (2016), No. 6 (22.11.2016)
Page 1327-1340, doi:10.11607/jomi.4668, PubMed:27861657
Soft and Hard Tissue Changes Following Immediate Placement or Immediate Restoration of Single-Tooth Implants in the Esthetic Zone: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Yan, Qi / Xiao, Li-Qun / Su, Mei-ying / Mei, Yan / Shi, Bin
Purpose: This systematic review aimed to compare immediate protocols with conventional protocols of single-tooth implants in terms of changes in the surrounding hard and soft tissue in the esthetic area.
Materials and Methods: Electronic and manual searches were performed in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and other data systems for research articles published between January 2001 and December 2014. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting on hard and or soft tissue characteristics following a single-tooth implant were included. Based on the protocol used in each study, the included studies were categorized into three groups to assess the relationships between the factors and related esthetic indexes. Variables such as marginal bone level changes (mesial, distal, and mean bone level), peri-implant soft tissue changes (papilla level, midbuccal mucosa, and probing depth), and other esthetic indices were taken into consideration. The data were analyzed using RevMan version 5.3, Stata 12, and GRADEpro 3.6.1 software.
Results: A total of 13 RCTs met the inclusion criteria. Four studies examined immediate implant placement, five studies examined immediate implant restoration, and four studies examined immediate loading. Comparing the bone level changes following immediate and conventional restoration, no significant differences were found in the bone level of the mesial site (standard mean difference [SMD] = -0.04 mm; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.25 to 0.17 mm), the distal site (SMD = -0.15 mm; 95% CI: -0.38 to 0.09 mm), and the mean bone level changes (SMD = 0.05 mm; 95% CI: -0.18 to 0.27 mm). The difference in the marginal bone level changes between immediate and conventional loading was also not statistically significant (SMD = -0.05 mm; 95% CI: -0.15 to 0.06 mm for the mesial site and SMD = -0.02 mm; 95% CI: -0.09 to 0.05 mm for the distal site). Soft tissue changes following immediate and conventional restoration reported no significant differences in the papillae level of the mesial site (SMD = 0.18 mm; 95% CI: -0.00 to 0.37 mm), the papillae level of the distal site (SMD = -0.12 mm; 95% CI: -0.34 to 0.09 mm), and the midbuccal mucosa (SMD = -0.22 mm; 95% CI: -1.29 to 0.85 mm).
Conclusion: Within the limitations, it can be concluded that immediately placed, restored, or loaded single-tooth implants in the esthetic zone result in similar hard and soft tissue changes compared with conventional protocols.
Keywords: esthetic, immediate implant, immediate loading, immediate restoration, meta-analysis, single implant