Immediate implant placement and loading in the maxillary esthetic zone demonstrate high survival rates, but esthetic and functional success data is still needed
Kelvin I. Afrashtehfar,Lovely M. Annamma,Maher A. Alshayeb,Alain Manuel Chaple-Gil
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebdp.2024.102036
IF: 5.1
2024-09-16
Journal of Evidence Based Dental Practice
Abstract:Summary Study Selection The study followed PRISMA guidelines, searching MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases up to January 14th, 2022, along with manual searches. Only English-language on humans with at least 10 participants, focusing on immediate implant placement and loading (Type 1A) in the maxillary esthetic zone with a 12-month minimum follow-up, were included. Animal, in vitro research, review articles, implants with machine surfaces, and non-Type 1A protocols were excluded. Covidence software was used to remove duplicates, and two idenpendent reviewers screened studies, resolving conflicts through discussion or a third reviewer. Key Study Factor This review aimed to evaluate Type 1A protocols for single tooth replacement in the maxillary esthetic zone. The focus was on comparing survival rates of implants placed and loaded immediately, considering patient and site selection criteria. Main Outcome Measure The primary outcomes measured was implant survival rates, with secondary outcomes assessing the impact of factors such as facial gap dimension, endodontic infection, and publication year. Meta-analysis was and statistical evaluations were performed using bootstrap tests and Poisson random-effects models. Main Results A total of 3118 publications were screened, with 68 articles meeting inclusion criteria, comprising 11 RCTs, six CCTs, 26 prospective cohort studies, and 25 retrospective cohort studies, involving 1625 participants. The mean number of implants per study was 37.2, with an average follow-up of 2.8 years. Implant survival rates ranged from 86.7% to 100%, with early failures comprising 87.8% of total losses. Dropout rates varied from 0% to 41.8%. The weighed mean survival rate for Type 1A implants was 97.7%, and 98.3% for early survival. Facial gap dimension and publication year significantly influenced survival rates; implants with gaps >2 mm had a higher survival rate (99.0%) than those with gaps <2 mm (95.9%), and studies post-2012 had higher survival rates (98.2%) than those pre-2012 (96.3%). Smokers unexpectedly had higher survival rates, although not statistically significant. Chronic endodontic infections did not negatively impact survival rates. The meta-analysis showed a mean survival rate of 99.4% per implant-year, with moderate study heterogeneity ( I 2 = 53%). Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of findings. Quality assessments revealed concerns regarding randomization in RCTs, while nonrandomized studies were rated good or fair. Most studies excluded patients with significant medical conditions and heavy smokers, while some included light smokers and controlled diabetics. Gingival recession and thin soft tissue were common exclusions, with specific bone anchorage criteria required for primary stability. Intact facial bone walls were often required, with some studies allowing small defects. Minimally traumatic extraction techniques were common, and implant insertion torque thresholds for immediate loading ranged from 20 to 45 Ncm. Most studies reported no occlusal contacts on immediate restorations, with limited contacts in a few cases. Conclusions This secondary study concluded that Type 1A immediate implant placement and loading protocols in the maxillary esthetic zone exhibit high survival rates when strict patient and site selection criteria are applied. A proposed risk assessment tool based on reported inclusion criteria can aid clinicians in selecting suitable cases for Type 1A protocols. Yet, further research is necessary to explore esthetic and functional outcomes comprehensively.
dentistry, oral surgery & medicine