Clinical Outcome of Immediately Loaded Maxillary Implants: A 2-Year Retrospective Study

Selection criteria for immediate implant placement and immediate loading for single tooth replacement in the maxillary esthetic zone: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to review available evidence for Type 1A (immediate implant placement and immediate loading) of single tooth replacement in the maxillary esthetic zone.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An electronic search was conducted utilizing the databases of MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane to identify publications reporting on the outcomes of Type 1A for single tooth replacement in the maxillary esthetic zone. The success and survival rates of the included articles were reported, which were further categorized according to the clinical criteria reported in Type 1A. Mean survival rates were univariately compared between risk groups and additionally between studies published before and since 2012 using bias-corrected and study size-weighed bootstrap tests. A study time-correcting meta-analysis was then performed to obtain an overall effect for the study pool.

RESULTS

A total of 3118 publications were identified in the search, with a total of 68 articles included. A mean number of implants per study were 37.2 and mean follow-up was 2.8 years. All the included studies utilizing Type 1A report highly selective inclusion and exclusion criteria. Univariate risk group comparison determined that studies before 2012 report a significantly lower mean survival rate (difference of -1.9 percentage points [PP], 95% CI: [-0.3, -4.0], p = .02), facial gap dimension had an impact on survival rates (+3.1 PP [0.2, 5.3] for width >2 mm, p = .04), as well as presence of endodontic infection (+2.6 PP [0.9, 5.1], p = .004).

CONCLUSIONS

Type 1A has a high survival rate in studies reporting strict patient and site selection criteria. Further research is required to assess esthetic and functional success with Type 1A treatments.

A Systematic Review of Clinical Outcomes on Patients Rehabilitated with Complete-Arch Fixed Implant-Supported Prostheses According to the Time of Loading

PURPOSE

To perform a systematic review on studies assessing clinical outcomes in patients rehabilitated with complete-arch fixed implant-supported prostheses according to the time of loading.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data obtained from patient and clinical outcomes, as implant failure, success rate, survival rate, biological complications, technical complications, mechanical complications, and marginal bone loss, were included on this review. The search was performed on databases PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane. Cochrane Collaboration tool was used to assess the risk of bias of randomized controlled studies, and an adapted version of Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used for observational studies. All data were tabulated according to the time of loading: (1) immediate restoration/loading, (2) early loading, and (3) conventional loading.

RESULTS

From a total of 4027 studies identified through the three databases, six of them were randomized controlled trials, five of them were prospective observational studies, and another five were retrospective observational studies. In total, 5954 implants, 1294 patients and 1305 full-arch fixed implant-supported prostheses were included in this review. There was a wide heterogeneity among clinical studies regarding the study design and treatment procedures. Thus, pooled estimates were not performed in order to avoid potential biases. The methodological assessment by the Modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale showed a moderate quality of observational studies. Regarding the RCTs studies, all of them presented at least one element of bias according to the Cochrane Collaboration tool for assessing risk of bias.

CONCLUSION

There is evidence of high survival-success implant rate (95-100%) for either loading protocols (immediate restoration/loading, early loading, and conventional loading). However, careful attention must be taken by clinician when interpreting the results reported in clinical studies. Future studies should be performed using standardized methodology in order to determine the true predictability regarding immediate, early, and conventional loading protocols.

Immediate loading vs. early/conventional loading of immediately placed implants in partially edentulous patients from the patients' perspective: A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review aimed at answering the following PICO question: In patients receiving immediate (Type 1) implant placement, how does immediate compare to early or conventional loading in terms of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs)?

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Following search strategy development, the OVID, PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews databases were search for the relevant literature. All levels of evidence including randomized controlled trials, prospective and retrospective cohort studies, and case series of at least five patients were considered for possible inclusion. An additional manual search was performed by screening the reference lists of relevant studies and systematic reviews published up to May 2017. The intervention considered was the placement of immediate implant. Study selection and data extraction were performed independently by two reviewers.

RESULTS

The search yielded a list of 1,102 references, of which nine were included in this systematic review. The limited number of studies included and the heterogeneity of the data identified prevented the performance of a meta-analysis. Three studies, one of which was a randomized controlled trial, allowed the extraction of comparative data specific to the aim of the present systematic review. The remaining studies allowed only data extraction for one single treatment modality and were viewed as single cohort studies. Overall, irrespective of the PROMs chosen, patients' satisfaction was overall high with little difference between the two loading protocols. Moreover, studies indicated a positive impact on oral health-related quality of life following immediate implant placement and loading.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitations of the present systematic review, immediate implant placement and loading in single tooth edentulous space seems to be a well-accepted treatment modality from the patients' perspective and is worthy of consideration in clinical practice. However, the paucity of comparative data limits any definitive conclusions as to which loading protocol; immediate or early/conventional, should be given preference based on PROMs.