Limited evidence suggests that the immediate placement of dental implants into infected sites versus non-infected sites in the esthetic zone show comparable clinical results

Journal of Evidence Based Dental PracticeSummarySelection CriteriaA thorough search was conducted between January 2009 and October 2017 in the PubMed, ISI Web of Knowledge, and Cochrane Library databases along with cross-checking of the identified article references. Clinical trials that were published in English and included a follow-up period of at least 1 year were selected.The titles and abstracts for eligible papers were screened by 2 reviewers. Full text was assessed when the studies met the eligibility criteria. Studies were included after agreement or, in cases of disagreement, consensus was reached through discussion among the authors.Key Study FactorThe clinical trials compared the immediate implant placement in healthy versus periapically or periodontally infected sites in the esthetic zone.Main Outcome MeasureImplant failure rates, bone level changes, and gingiva level changes.Main ResultsOf 31 articles selected, 9 articles were included in this review and 22 articles were excluded. Nine studies reported implant failure rate; 6 studies were conducted to assess the outcome of immediately placed implants in sockets with or without periapical pathology. In 1 study, the prognosis for immediate dental implants placed in fresh sockets with or without periodontal lesions was investigated. The other 2 studies analyzed the treatment outcomes of immediate implant placement in sites demonstrating periodontal or periapical pathology. Clinical parameters such as bone levels an...
Source: Dental Technology Blog - Category: Dentistry Source Type: news