Outcomes of implants placed in sites of previously failed implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

B Gareb, A Vissink, H Terheyden, H J A Meijer, G M Raghoebar
{"title":"Outcomes of implants placed in sites of previously failed implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"B Gareb, A Vissink, H Terheyden, H J A Meijer, G M Raghoebar","doi":"10.1016/j.ijom.2024.10.006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The survival rate of implants placed at sites of previous failures including the best treatment strategies remain unclear. This systematic review was performed to assess implant survival and peri-implant health for such cases, including subgroup analyses of immediate versus delayed implant placement and augmentation. Four electronic databases were searched. Meta-analyses including subgroup analyses were performed (PROSPERO CRD42024548610). Out of 1798 records identified, 24 studies were included. The 1-year implant survival rate after replacement was 96.7% (95% confidence interval (CI) 92.8-99.3%), with no significant difference between immediate and delayed placement (P = 0.31) or immediate and delayed augmentation (P = 0.85). Immediate augmentation showed higher overall implant survival (97.6%, 95% CI 93.4-99.9%) compared to delayed augmentation (91.7%, 95% CI 83.4-97.5%), although not statistically significant (P = 0.26). Peri-implant health outcomes, including marginal bone loss, were similar across subgroups. Second implant replacements had lower survival rates than first replacements. Replacement of the failed implant is an appealing treatment option for failed implants, although the implant survival is lower compared to initially placed implants. Immediate implant placement can be done if sufficient bone is present. If insufficient bone remains after removal, immediate augmentation followed by delayed implant placement is recommended.</p>","PeriodicalId":94053,"journal":{"name":"International journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2024.10.006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The survival rate of implants placed at sites of previous failures including the best treatment strategies remain unclear. This systematic review was performed to assess implant survival and peri-implant health for such cases, including subgroup analyses of immediate versus delayed implant placement and augmentation. Four electronic databases were searched. Meta-analyses including subgroup analyses were performed (PROSPERO CRD42024548610). Out of 1798 records identified, 24 studies were included. The 1-year implant survival rate after replacement was 96.7% (95% confidence interval (CI) 92.8-99.3%), with no significant difference between immediate and delayed placement (P = 0.31) or immediate and delayed augmentation (P = 0.85). Immediate augmentation showed higher overall implant survival (97.6%, 95% CI 93.4-99.9%) compared to delayed augmentation (91.7%, 95% CI 83.4-97.5%), although not statistically significant (P = 0.26). Peri-implant health outcomes, including marginal bone loss, were similar across subgroups. Second implant replacements had lower survival rates than first replacements. Replacement of the failed implant is an appealing treatment option for failed implants, although the implant survival is lower compared to initially placed implants. Immediate implant placement can be done if sufficient bone is present. If insufficient bone remains after removal, immediate augmentation followed by delayed implant placement is recommended.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在先前失败的植入部位植入种植体的效果:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
在以前失败的部位植入种植体的存活率以及最佳治疗策略仍不清楚。本系统综述旨在评估此类病例的种植体存活率和种植体周围健康状况,包括即刻与延迟种植体植入和增量的亚组分析。我们检索了四个电子数据库。进行了包括亚组分析在内的元分析(PROSPERO CRD42024548610)。在确定的 1798 条记录中,有 24 项研究被纳入。置换后的 1 年种植体存活率为 96.7%(95% 置信区间 (CI) 92.8-99.3%),即刻置入和延迟置入(P = 0.31)或即刻增量和延迟增量(P = 0.85)之间无显著差异。即刻种植与延迟种植(91.7%,95% CI 83.4-97.5%)相比,即刻种植的种植体总存活率更高(97.6%,95% CI 93.4-99.9%),但无统计学意义(P = 0.26)。不同亚组的种植体周围健康状况(包括边缘骨质流失)相似。第二次种植体置换的存活率低于第一次置换。对于失败的种植体,更换失败的种植体是一种很有吸引力的治疗方案,尽管与初次植入的种植体相比,种植体的存活率较低。如果有足够的骨质,可以立即植入种植体。如果移除后骨质仍然不足,建议立即进行增量,然后延迟植入种植体。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Aggressive primary salivary gland-type carcinoma of the thyroid: a case report. Food texture modification in head and neck cancer patients: a scoping review. Is weight-bearing as tolerated safe after proximal tibial metaphyseal autogenous bone harvest? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Surgical treatment for uncommon malignancies of the paranasal sinuses and anterior cranial fossa: report of two cases and literature review. Soft tissue genioplasty: an innovative surgical technique for the correction of chin soft tissue abnormalities.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1