Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20824846›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2010

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: dental implants in fresh extraction sockets (immediate, immediate-delayed and delayed implants).

Marco Esposito, Maria Gabriella Grusovin, Ilias P Polyzos, Pietro Felice, Helen V Worthington

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07047131 (A Resorbable Versus a Non-resorbable Bone Substitute at Immediate Post-extractive Single Implants Immediately Loaded), which is not on this map. Cited by 41 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
17.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT07047131 phase3active not recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2018, after this paper: background citation

A Resorbable Versus a Non-resorbable Bone Substitute at Immediate Post-extractive Single Implants Immediately Loaded: a Multicentre Randomised Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorMarco EspositoRan2018 to 2030Enrolled50ConditionsTooth Extraction, Bone Graft, Alveolar Bone Loss, Dental ImplantArmsGTO® (fully resorbable bone substitute), Apatos® (partially resorbable bone substitute)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

41 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 173 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Marco EspositoDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, The University of Manchester, Coupland 3 Building, Oxford Road, Manchester, UK, M13 9PL.
Maria Gabriella Grusovin
Ilias P Polyzos
Pietro Felice
Helen V Worthington
University of Manchester · GBUniversity of Bologna · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background'Immediate' implants are placed in dental sockets just after tooth extraction. 'Immediate-delayed' implants are those implants inserted after weeks up to about a couple of months to allow for soft tissue healing. 'Delayed' implants are those placed thereafter in partially or completely healed bone. The potential advantages of immediate implants are that treatment time can be shortened and that bone volumes might be partially maintained thus possibly providing good aesthetic results. The potential disadvantages are an increased risk of infection and failures. After implant placement in postextractive sites, gaps can be present between the implant and the bony walls. It is possible to fill these gaps and to augment bone simultaneously to implant placement. There are many techniques to achieve this but it is unclear when augmentation is needed and which could be the best augmentation technique.

objectivesTo evaluate success, complications, aesthetics and patient satisfaction between 'immediate', 'immediate-delayed' and 'delayed' implants.To evaluate whether and when augmentation procedures are necessary and which is the most effective technique. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 2 June 2010), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 2), MEDLINE via OVID (1950 - 2 June 2010) and EMBASE via OVID (1980 - 2 June 2010) were searched. Several dental journals were handsearched. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing immediate, immediate-delayed, and delayed implants, or comparing various bone augmentation procedures around the inserted implants, reporting the outcome of the interventions to at least 1 year after functional loading. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were conducted independently and in duplicate. Trial authors were contacted for any missing information. Results were expressed as random-effects models using mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The statistical unit of the analysis was the patient. MAIN

resultsFourteen eligible RCTs were identified but only seven trials could be included. Four RCTs evaluated implant placement timing. Two RCTs compared immediate versus delayed implants in 126 patients and found no statistically significant differences. One RCT compared immediate-delayed versus delayed implants in 46 patients. After 2 years patients in the immediate-delayed group perceived the time to functional loading significantly shorter, were more satisfied and independent blinded assessor judged the level of the perimplant marginal mucosa in relation to that of the adjacent teeth as more appropriate (RR = 1.68; 95% CI 1.04 to 2.72). These differences disappeared 5 years after loading but significantly more complications occurred in the immediate-delayed group (RR = 4.20; 95% CI 1.01 to 17.43). One RCT compared immediate with immediately delayed implants in 16 patients for 2 years and found no differences. Three RCTs evaluated different techniques of bone grafting for implants immediately placed in extraction sockets. No statistically significant difference was observed when evaluating whether autogenous bone is needed in postextractive sites (1 trial with 26 patients) or which was the most effective augmentation technique (2 trials with 56 patients). AUTHORS'

conclusionsThere is insufficient evidence to determine possible advantages or disadvantages of immediate, immediate-delayed or delayed implants, therefore these preliminary conclusions are based on few underpowered trials often judged to be at high risk of bias. There is a suggestion that immediate and immediate-delayed implants may be at higher risks of implant failures and complications than delayed implants on the other hand the aesthetic outcome might be better when placing implants just after teeth extraction. There is not enough reliable evidence supporting or refuting the need for augmentation procedures at immediate implants placed in fresh extraction sockets or whether any of the augmentation techniques is superior to the others.

Indexed as

Dental ImplantsTooth ExtractionAntibiotic ProphylaxisDental Implantation, EndosseousDental Restoration FailureHumansPatient SatisfactionRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTime FactorsDental Implants

Identifiers

PMID20824846
PMCPMC12086013
OpenAlexW2098627359

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.