Malmö University Publications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Dental implants inserted in fresh extraction sockets versus healed sites: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Malmö University, Faculty of Odontology (OD).
2022 (English)Independent thesis Advanced level (degree of Master (Two Years)), 20 credits / 30 HE creditsStudent thesis
Abstract [en]

Purpose

The present review aimed to evaluate the difference of dental implant failure rates and marginal bone loss (MBL) between implants inserted in fresh extraction sockets or healed sites.

 

Materials and methods

Electronic search was undertaken in three databases, plus manual search of journals, including studies randomized or not. Meta-analyses were performed besides meta-regressions, in order to verify how the odds ratio (OR) and MBL were associated with follow-up time.

 

Results

The review included 163 publications. Altogether, there were 17,278 and 38,738 implants placed in fresh extraction sockets and healed sites, respectively. Pairwise meta-analyses showed that implants in sockets had a higher failure risk in comparison to healed sites: OR 1.349, all studies included; OR 2.070, only prospective non-RCTs; OR 2.487, only RCTs (all p < 0.001). The difference in implant failure between the groups was statistically significant in the maxilla (OR 1.616, p = 0.029), but not in the mandible (OR 2.192, p = 0.075). The MBL mean difference (MD) between the groups was -0.053 mm, although not statistically significant (p = 0.089). There was an estimated decrease of 0.003 in OR (p = 0.284; not statistically significant) and increase of 0.006 mm (p = 0.036) in the MBL MD between groups for every additional month of follow-up.

 

Conclusion

In conclusion, implants placed in fresh extraction sockets present higher risk of failure than implants placed in healed sites.

Abstract [sv]

Syfte

Granskningen syftade på att utvärdera skillnaden i misslyckandefrekvensen av dentala implantat och marginalbenförlust (MBL) mellan implantat installerade i ny extraktionsalveol jämfört med läkt områden.

 

Material och metod

Elektronisk sökning gjordes i tre databaser, plus manuell sökning av journaler, inklusive studier som var randomiserade eller ej. Metaanalyser utfördes, förutom metaregressioner, för att verifiera hur oddskvoten (OR) och MBL var associerade med uppföljningstid.

 

Resultat

Granskningen inkluderade 163 publikationer. Sammanlagt fanns det 17,278 och 38,738 implantat placerade i ny extraktionsalveol respektive läkt områden. Parvisa metaanalyser visade att implantat i en ny extraktionsalveol hade en högre risk att misslyckas jämfört med läkt områden. OR 1,349 alla studier inkluderade; OR 2.070, endast prospektiv icke-RCTs, OR 2.487, endast RCTs (alla p < 0.001). Skillnaden i implantatens misslyckandefrekvens mellan gruppen var statistiskt signifikant i maxillan (OR 1.616, p = 0.029), men inte i mandibeln (OR 2.192, p = 0.075). MBL medelskillnaden mellan grupperna var -0,053 mm, och var inte statistiskt signifikant (p = 0.089). Det var en uppskattad minskning med 0.0003 i OR (p = 0.284; inte statistiskt signifikant) och en ökning av 0.006 mm (p = 0.036) i MBL medelskillnaden mellan grupperna för varje ytterligare månad av uppföljning.

 

Slutsats

Slutsatsen blev att implantat som placerades i en ny extraktionsalveol innebar högre risk för misslyckanden än implantat placerade i läkt områden.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2022.
Keywords [en]
Dental implants, implants
National Category
Dentistry
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:mau:diva-51774OAI: oai:DiVA.org:mau-51774DiVA, id: diva2:1662054
Educational program
OD Dental Science: Master Program
Supervisors
Examiners
Available from: 2023-07-21 Created: 2022-05-30 Last updated: 2023-07-21Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(3626 kB)237 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT02.pdfFile size 3626 kBChecksum SHA-512
0f58a08f5ad21f63b80cdfc33b1fb76e1549ce9a3ffcbe59d7ad84bc219f27fc57e26a38ecaaba9c57097649827a912a76a15a1782f96976a834eb4e87660fb9
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Ibrahim, Adam
By organisation
Faculty of Odontology (OD)
Dentistry

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 241 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

urn-nbn

Altmetric score

urn-nbn
Total: 137 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf