de Oliveira-Neto OB, Lemos CAA, Barbosa FT, de Sousa-Rodrigues CF, Camello de Lima FJ. Immediate dental implants placed into infected sites present a higher risk of failure than immediate dental implants placed into non-infected sites: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2019;
24:e518-e528. [PMID:
31232386 PMCID:
PMC6667019 DOI:
10.4317/medoral.22954]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/31/2018] [Accepted: 02/04/2019] [Indexed: 12/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Background
Alveolar infection is known as a risk factor for implant failure. Current meta-analysis on the theme could not prove statistically that immediate dental implants placed into infected sites have a higher risk of failure than immediate dental implants placed into non-infected sites. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to determine the effectiveness of immediate dental implants placed into infected versus non-infected sites.
Material and Methods
Seven databases were sought by two reviewers. Randomized or non-randomized clinical trials that compared the placement of dental implants into infected versus non-infected sites were eligible for the study. Exclusion criteria were: papers in which the survival rate was not the primary outcome; papers without a control group; studies with less than one year of follow-up; studies whose patients did not receive antibiotic therapy; studies with medically compromised patients; duplicated papers. Risk of bias assessment was performed with the Cochrane Collaboration tool.
Results
Of the 3.253 initial hits, 8 studies were included in both qualitative and quantitative synthesis (kappa=0.90; very good agreement). Forest plot for implant failure showed that immediate implants placed into infected sites presented a statistically significant risk of failure that is almost 3 times higher than when placed into non-infected sites (risk ratio= 2.99; 95% confidence interval: 1.04, 8.56; p= 0.04; 935 implants; i2= 0%). Peri-implant outcomes showed no statistical difference.
Conclusions
Immediate dental implants placed into infected sites presented a statistically significant higher risk of failure than immediate dental implants placed into non-infected sites. Peri-implant outcomes were not statistically affected in this intervention.
Key words:Dental implants, infection, tooth socket, systematic review, immediate placement.
Collapse