{"title":"Immediate implant placement in periodontally infected sites- A systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Jaspreet Kaur, Gurparkash Singh Chahal, Vishakha Grover, Dipika Bansal, Ashish Jain","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>The purpose of this meta-analysis is to systematically evaluate published evidence literature pertaining to report the differences in the survival rate of immediate implant placement in infected sites and non-infected sites.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>After the application of the search strategy in PUBMED, SCOPUS, and EMBASE research databases, a total of 1864 papers were found. Titles and abstracts were screened, yielding 77 full-text papers. After the overall assessment, 23 articles were recruited based on the inclusion criteria for analysis of data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of 23 studies, 14 studies were combined to assess the risk ratio of survival rate of immediate implant placement between infected and non-infected sites, depicting no significant difference on the survival rate. Further pooled estimate of proportion of survival rates were 0.98 suggesting 98% survival rate of immediate implants placed in infected sockets when 9 retrospective and prospective studies (no control studies) were combined. These findings demonstrate that successful outcomes can be expected for immediate implants when placed into infected extraction sockets.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Within the limitations of this systematic review, equal predictability for successful osseointegration and long-term functioning of immediate implants was found in infected as well as in healthy extraction sites, but astringent antiseptic environment is mandatory for wound healing of immediate implants.</p>","PeriodicalId":17281,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the International Academy of Periodontology","volume":"23 2","pages":"115-137"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the International Academy of Periodontology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","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
Aims: The purpose of this meta-analysis is to systematically evaluate published evidence literature pertaining to report the differences in the survival rate of immediate implant placement in infected sites and non-infected sites.
Materials and methods: After the application of the search strategy in PUBMED, SCOPUS, and EMBASE research databases, a total of 1864 papers were found. Titles and abstracts were screened, yielding 77 full-text papers. After the overall assessment, 23 articles were recruited based on the inclusion criteria for analysis of data.
Results: Out of 23 studies, 14 studies were combined to assess the risk ratio of survival rate of immediate implant placement between infected and non-infected sites, depicting no significant difference on the survival rate. Further pooled estimate of proportion of survival rates were 0.98 suggesting 98% survival rate of immediate implants placed in infected sockets when 9 retrospective and prospective studies (no control studies) were combined. These findings demonstrate that successful outcomes can be expected for immediate implants when placed into infected extraction sockets.
Conclusions: Within the limitations of this systematic review, equal predictability for successful osseointegration and long-term functioning of immediate implants was found in infected as well as in healthy extraction sites, but astringent antiseptic environment is mandatory for wound healing of immediate implants.