Long-Term Outcomes of Immediate Implant Placement Into Infected Sockets in Association With Immediate Loading: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Five- and 18-Year Outcome of Two Cases with Full-Arch Rehabilitations Ad modum All-on-4 in the Presence of Challenging Conditions

Placing implants in fresh postextraction sites is a borderline rehabilitation procedure. The purpose of this report is to describe the pre-, per-, and postoperative procedures for maintaining long-term stability of two full-arch rehabilitations through the All-on-4 protocol, performed in the presence of challenging conditions. Two patients were referred for full-arch rehabilitation with immediate function, with both patients presenting infection in the jaws: patient 1 with an implant (position #45) inserted in a cystic cavity; patient 2 with one implant (position #24) inserted transsinus after the removal of a cyst on the base of the maxillary sinus and another implant (position #15) inserted with a dehiscence. Both patients received a preoperative dental hygiene appointment, a regenerative surgical protocol, and were enrolled in a postoperative maintenance protocol. After surgery a provisional prosthesis was provided ensuring immediate function, and 6 months after surgery, the final prosthesis was delivered. During the follow-up appointments (final follow-up at 5 and 18 years), the implants were stable, and no infection was observed for both patients. The present case report describes two full-arch rehabilitations in immediate function, supported by dental implants inserted in the presence of challenging conditions that do not represent the norm, rather are highly demanding for the clinical team, warranting caution in the interpretation of the results.

High-Power Laser Application for Immediate Implant Placement in Infected Sites: A Systematic Review

Objective: The purpose of this study was to review the literatures regarding the treatment outcomes of applying laser to the infected sites in immediate implant placement. The review tended to primarily target a question: does applying high-power laser have any positive effect on infected sites in immediate implant placement? Background: Although immediate placement of dental implants has been referred to as a predictable and successful procedure, it is prone to the presence of infection that interferes with the healing process, and triggers the failure of implants. Materials and methods: A thorough electronic database search was conducted on PubMed/Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane library in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Two writers worked separately on screening the eligible studies, assessing whether there was a risk of bias, and extracting the required data. Results: Five out of the 60 studies nominated by the database search matched the inclusion criteria. The studies were carried out on a total of 192 patients with 296 implants in all. Ultimately, the study focused on 245 implants whose infected bed had been already decontaminated and prepared with the help of the high-intensity laser, used either alone or in combination with other approaches before implantation. With only nine failures, the implants inserted in infected and irradiated areas had a 96.3% overall survival rate. Conclusions: Taking the limitations of the review into account, the authors arrived at the conclusion that high-power laser irradiation can be beneficial for immediate implant placement in infected sites.

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.

Knowledge and Attitude towards Retrograde Peri-Implantitis among Italian Implantologists: A Cross-Sectional Survey

BACKGROUND

Retrograde peri-implantitis (RPI) is a pathological entity with an unclear etiology (e.g., overheating during implant insertion, residual infection of the tooth replaced by the implant or the endodontic lesion of neighboring teeth) and an extremely low prevalence and has been scarcely investigated. Therefore, the aim of this cross-sectional survey was to evaluate the knowledge and attitude of Italian implantologists regarding RPI.

METHODS

An anonymous questionnaire was sent via email to implantologists randomly selected, including a section about demographic information and questions related to RPI origin, radiographic representation, symptoms and treatment options. All questions were multiple answer and close-ended. Binomial logistic regression was performed to investigate the relationship between correct answers and the following independent variables: age, years of experience and number of dental implants placed per year.

RESULTS

In total, 475 implantologists completed the questionnaire, with a response rate of 46.3%. Based on the results of the study, incorrect answers were associated with less experienced participants (<80 implants/year) for all questions evaluated, with the exception of treatment strategies. Furthermore, 26.7% of the survey takers did not recognize radiographic representation of RPI and 35.5% picked "implant removal" when asked about treatment modality.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of participants were able to recognize symptoms and indicated the probable causes of RPI; however, around 30% of them showed very limited knowledge of available management strategies.

Clinical sequelae and patients' perception of dental implant removal: A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

A cross-sectional study was designed to shed light on the clinical sequelae and patient satisfaction after dental implant removal (IR).

METHODS

Patients undergoing ≥1 IRs were eligible. The reasons for implant failure, clinical and radiological parameters before and after IR, and the surgical and prosthetic treatments offered after IR was assessed. Patient satisfaction was recorded and the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP)-14 was used to document patient self-reported dysfunction and discomfort attributed to IR. Lastly, patient expectations after IR were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Thirty-one patients with 45 implants were analyzed. Peri-implantitis was the main reason for IR (64.5%). The average implant survival time before IR was 120.3 ± 88.2 months. Signs of infection (51.7%) and bleeding on probing (37.5%) were common signs detected at the time of IR. Guided bone regeneration was the intervention most commonly applied simultaneously to IR (74.1%). The reported degree of satisfaction was high, and the overall OHIP-14 score was low. However, a certain patient reluctance to undergo future implant placement in the same clinic or with the same professional was recorded, and a statistically significant increase in adherence to the implant maintenance routine was observed after IR.

CONCLUSIONS

Peri-implantitis is the leading cause for IR. Guided bone regeneration is commonly applied to attenuate the clinical sequelae of IR. Nonetheless, IR does not seem to affect patients' satisfaction nor their quality of life, though a certain patient reluctance to undergo future implant placement in the same clinic or with the same professional was reported.

Immediate Implant Placement in Infected Sockets: A Consecutive Cohort Study

Introduction: Immediate placement of implants in a fresh post-extraction socket is an increasingly popular and established treatment option. However, active infection in the extraction site may adversely affect the outcome of this procedure. This study was designed to assess the clinical results of immediate placement of dental implants in infected extraction sockets using a standardized protocol, which included (a) the use of an Er,Cr:YSGG laser for the decontamination of the infected socket prior to implant insertion, and (b) the utilization of an in situ hardening alloplastic bone graft substitute to augment the gap between the implant surface and the labial plate of bone. Patients and Methods: A retrospective record review was used to identify 68 patients who had implants placed as per the described protocol. A total of 126 implants were placed in 68 patients (65 implants in the maxilla, 61 implants in the mandible). The implants were loaded 136 ± 73 days (mean ± standard deviation; range: 37–400 days) after implant placement. Eight patients (16 implants) were subsequently lost to follow up. Results: 105 of the 110 implants (95.45%) placed immediately in the infected sites using the described protocol survived after prosthetic loading. Conclusion: Immediate implant placement in previously infected sites using the protocols mentioned in our study with laser decontamination of the socket, grafting with an in situ hardening alloplastic bone graft material and non-submerged healing shows a similar survival rate to the published success rates for immediate implants placed in non-infected sites.

The effectiveness of immediate implant placement for single tooth replacement compared to delayed implant placement: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

To compare immediate implant placement (IIP) to delayed single implant placement (DIP, ≥3 months post-extraction) in terms of implant survival (primary outcome), surgical, clinical, aesthetic, radiographic and patient-reported outcomes (secondary outcomes).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two reviewers independently performed an electronic search in PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE and Cochrane and a hand search to identify eligible studies up to May 2018. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized controlled studies (NRSs) comparing IIP to DIP with at least 1 year of follow-up were selected for a qualitative analysis and meta-analysis.

RESULTS

The search identified 3 RCTs and 5 NRSs out of 2,589 titles providing data on 473 single implants (IIP: 233, DIP: 240) that had been in function between 12 and 96 months. One RCT showed unclear risk of bias, whereas all other studies demonstrated high risk. Meta-analysis showed significantly lower implant survival for IIP (94.9%) as compared to DIP (98.9%) (RR 0.96, 95% CI [0.93; 0.99], p = 0.02). All were early implant failures. A subgroup meta-analysis demonstrated a trend towards lower implant survival for IIP when postoperative antibiotics had not been administered (RR: 0.93, 95% CI [0.86; 1.00], p = 0.07). This was not observed among studies including the administration of postoperative antibiotics (RR: 0.98, 95% CI [0.94; 1.02], p = 0.35). Meta-analyses showed similar probing depth (WMD 0.43 mm, 95% CI [-0.47; 1.33], p = 0.35) and aesthetic outcomes as assessed by the pink aesthetic score (standardized WMD -0.03, 95% CI [-0.46; 0.39], p = 0.88) for IIP and DIP. Data on marginal bone loss were conflicting and highly biased. Soft tissue recession was underreported and available data were highly biased. Patient-reported outcomes were underreported, yet both IIP and DIP seemed well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

Immediate implant placement demonstrated higher risk for early implant loss than DIP. There is a need for RCTs comparing IIP to DIP with CBCT analyses at different time points and data on midfacial recession with the preoperative status as baseline. In these studies, the need for hard and soft tissue grafting should also be evaluated.

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

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.

Biomechanics of Immediate Postextraction Implant Osseointegration

The aim of this study was to gain insights into the biology and mechanics of immediate postextraction implant osseointegration. To mimic clinical practice, murine first molar extraction was followed by osteotomy site preparation, specifically in the palatal root socket. The osteotomy was positioned such that it removed periodontal ligament (PDL) only on the palatal aspect of the socket, leaving the buccal aspect undisturbed. This strategy created 2 distinct peri-implant environments: on the palatal aspect, the implant was in direct contact with bone, while on the buccal aspect, a PDL-filled gap existed between the implant and bone. Finite element modeling showed high strains on the palatal aspect, where bone was compressed by the implant. Osteocyte death and bone resorption predominated on the palatal aspect, leading to the loss of peri-implant bone. On the buccal aspect, where finite element modeling revealed low strains, there was minimal osteocyte death and robust peri-implant bone formation. Initially, the buccal aspect was filled with PDL remnants, which we found directly provided Wnt-responsive cells that were responsible for new bone formation and osseointegration. On the palatal aspect, which was devoid of PDL and Wnt-responsive cells, adding exogenous liposomal WNT3A created an osteogenic environment for rapid peri-implant bone formation. Thus, we conclude that low strain and high Wnt signaling favor osseointegration of immediate postextraction implants. The PDL harbors Wnt-responsive cells that are inherently osteogenic, and if the PDL tissue is healthy, it is reasonable to preserve this tissue during immediate implant placement.

Immediate Implants: Clinical Guidelines for Esthetic Outcomes

Research has shown that tooth loss results in morphological changes in alveolar ridge that may influence the subsequent implant placement. Immediate implant placement was introduced as a possible means to limit bone resorption and reduce the number of surgical procedures following tooth extraction. Histological and clinical evidence from human clinical studies showing efficacy of immediate implants has come to light over the last decade or so. However, immediate implant placement is a challenging surgical procedure and requires proper case selection and surgical technique. Furthermore, there appears to be a lack of clinical guidelines for immediate implant placement case selection. Therefore, the aim of this mini-review is to analyze critical evidence from human studies in order to establish clinical guidelines which may help clinicians in case selection when considering immediate implant placement protocol.