Cargando…

Efficacy of bone‐substitute materials use in immediate dental implant placement: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of using a bone substitute material (BSM) in the fixture–socket gap in patients undergoing tooth extraction and immediate implant placement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). RCTs wer...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zaki, John, Yusuf, Nermin, El‐Khadem, Ahmed, Scholten, Rob J. P. M., Jenniskens, Kevin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8453723/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34118175
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cid.13014
_version_ 1784570330819330048
author Zaki, John
Yusuf, Nermin
El‐Khadem, Ahmed
Scholten, Rob J. P. M.
Jenniskens, Kevin
author_facet Zaki, John
Yusuf, Nermin
El‐Khadem, Ahmed
Scholten, Rob J. P. M.
Jenniskens, Kevin
author_sort Zaki, John
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of using a bone substitute material (BSM) in the fixture–socket gap in patients undergoing tooth extraction and immediate implant placement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). RCTs were screened for eligibility, and data were extracted by two authors independently. Risk of bias (ROB) was assessed using Cochrane's ROB tool 2.0. Primary outcomes were implant failure, overall complications, and soft‐tissue esthetics. Secondary outcomes were vertical buccal bone resorption, vertical interproximal bone resorption, horizontal buccal bone resorption, and mid‐buccal mucosal recession. Meta‐analysis was performed using random‐effects model with generic inverse variance weighing. GRADE was used to grade the certainty of the evidence. RESULTS: After screening 19 544 potentially eligible references, 20 RCTs were included in this review, with a total of 848 patients (916 sites). Most included RCTs were deemed of some concerns (53%) or at low (38%) risk of bias, except for overall complications (high ROB). Implant failure did not differ significantly RR = 0.92 (confidence intervals [CI] 0.34 to 2.46) between using a BSM compared with not using a BSM (NoBSM). BSM use resulted in less horizontal buccal bone resorption (MD = −0.52 mm [95% CI −0.74 to −0.30]), a higher esthetic score (MD = 1.49 [95% CI 0.46 to 2.53]), but also more complications (RR = 3.50 [95% CI 1.11 to 11.1] compared with NoBSM. Too few trials compared types of BSMs against each other to allow for pooled analyses. The certainty of the evidence was considered moderate for all outcomes except implant failure (low), overall complications (very low), and vertical interproximal bone resorption (very low). CONCLUSION: BSM use during immediate implant placement reduces horizontal buccal bone resorption and improves the periimplant soft‐tissue esthetics. Although BSM use increases the risk of predominantly minor complications.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8453723
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-84537232021-09-27 Efficacy of bone‐substitute materials use in immediate dental implant placement: A systematic review and meta‐analysis Zaki, John Yusuf, Nermin El‐Khadem, Ahmed Scholten, Rob J. P. M. Jenniskens, Kevin Clin Implant Dent Relat Res Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analysis OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of using a bone substitute material (BSM) in the fixture–socket gap in patients undergoing tooth extraction and immediate implant placement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). RCTs were screened for eligibility, and data were extracted by two authors independently. Risk of bias (ROB) was assessed using Cochrane's ROB tool 2.0. Primary outcomes were implant failure, overall complications, and soft‐tissue esthetics. Secondary outcomes were vertical buccal bone resorption, vertical interproximal bone resorption, horizontal buccal bone resorption, and mid‐buccal mucosal recession. Meta‐analysis was performed using random‐effects model with generic inverse variance weighing. GRADE was used to grade the certainty of the evidence. RESULTS: After screening 19 544 potentially eligible references, 20 RCTs were included in this review, with a total of 848 patients (916 sites). Most included RCTs were deemed of some concerns (53%) or at low (38%) risk of bias, except for overall complications (high ROB). Implant failure did not differ significantly RR = 0.92 (confidence intervals [CI] 0.34 to 2.46) between using a BSM compared with not using a BSM (NoBSM). BSM use resulted in less horizontal buccal bone resorption (MD = −0.52 mm [95% CI −0.74 to −0.30]), a higher esthetic score (MD = 1.49 [95% CI 0.46 to 2.53]), but also more complications (RR = 3.50 [95% CI 1.11 to 11.1] compared with NoBSM. Too few trials compared types of BSMs against each other to allow for pooled analyses. The certainty of the evidence was considered moderate for all outcomes except implant failure (low), overall complications (very low), and vertical interproximal bone resorption (very low). CONCLUSION: BSM use during immediate implant placement reduces horizontal buccal bone resorption and improves the periimplant soft‐tissue esthetics. Although BSM use increases the risk of predominantly minor complications. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2021-06-12 2021-08 /pmc/articles/PMC8453723/ /pubmed/34118175 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cid.13014 Text en © 2021 The Authors. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research Published by Wiley Periodicals LLC. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analysis
Zaki, John
Yusuf, Nermin
El‐Khadem, Ahmed
Scholten, Rob J. P. M.
Jenniskens, Kevin
Efficacy of bone‐substitute materials use in immediate dental implant placement: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
title Efficacy of bone‐substitute materials use in immediate dental implant placement: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
title_full Efficacy of bone‐substitute materials use in immediate dental implant placement: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
title_fullStr Efficacy of bone‐substitute materials use in immediate dental implant placement: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
title_full_unstemmed Efficacy of bone‐substitute materials use in immediate dental implant placement: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
title_short Efficacy of bone‐substitute materials use in immediate dental implant placement: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
title_sort efficacy of bone‐substitute materials use in immediate dental implant placement: a systematic review and meta‐analysis
topic Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analysis
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8453723/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34118175
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cid.13014
work_keys_str_mv AT zakijohn efficacyofbonesubstitutematerialsuseinimmediatedentalimplantplacementasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT yusufnermin efficacyofbonesubstitutematerialsuseinimmediatedentalimplantplacementasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT elkhademahmed efficacyofbonesubstitutematerialsuseinimmediatedentalimplantplacementasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT scholtenrobjpm efficacyofbonesubstitutematerialsuseinimmediatedentalimplantplacementasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT jenniskenskevin efficacyofbonesubstitutematerialsuseinimmediatedentalimplantplacementasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis