Immediate dental implants placed into infected sites present a higher risk of failure than immediate dental implants placed into non-infected sites: Systematic review and meta-analysis

dc.contributor.authorDe Oliveira-Neto, Olavo-Barbosa
dc.contributor.authorLemos, Cleidiel-Aparecido-Araújo [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorBarbosa, Fabiano-Timbó
dc.contributor.authorDe Sousa-Rodrigues, Célio-Fernando
dc.contributor.authorCamello De Lima, Fernando-José
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)
dc.contributor.institutionFederal University of Alagoas (UFAL)
dc.date.accessioned2019-10-06T16:39:58Z
dc.date.available2019-10-06T16:39:58Z
dc.date.issued2019-07-01
dc.description.abstractBackground: Alveolar infection is known as a risk factor for implant failure. Current meta-analysis on the theme could not prove statistically that immediate dental implants placed into infected sites have a higher risk of failure than immediate dental implants placed into non-infected sites. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to determine the effectiveness of immediate dental implants placed into infected versus non-infected sites. Material and Methods: Seven databases were sought by two reviewers. Randomized or non-randomized clinical trials that compared the placement of dental implants into infected versus non-infected sites were eligible for the study. Exclusion criteria were: papers in which the survival rate was not the primary outcome; papers without a control group; studies with less than one year of follow-up; studies whose patients did not receive antibiotic therapy; studies with medically compromised patients; duplicated papers. Risk of bias assessment was performed with the Cochrane Collaboration tool. Results: Of the 3.253 initial hits, 8 studies were included in both qualitative and quantitative synthesis (kappa= 0.90; very good agreement). Forest plot for implant failure showed that immediate implants placed into infected sites presented a statistically significant risk of failure that is almost 3 times higher than when placed into non-infected sites (risk ratio= 2.99; 95% confidence interval: 1.04, 8.56; p= 0.04; 935 implants; i2= 0%). Peri-implant outcomes showed no statistical difference. Conclusions: Immediate dental implants placed into infected sites presented a statistically significant higher risk of failure than immediate dental implants placed into non-infected sites. Peri-implant outcomes were not statistically affected in this intervention.en
dc.description.affiliationDepartment of Morphology Anatomy Area Piracicaba Dental School University of Campinas
dc.description.affiliationDepartment of Prosthodontics Araçatuba Dental School São Paulo State University (UNESP)
dc.description.affiliationMedical School Federal University of Alagoas (UFAL)
dc.description.affiliationDepartment of Morphology Human Anatomy Area Institute of Health and Biological Sciences Federal University of Alagoas (UFAL)
dc.description.affiliationUnespDepartment of Prosthodontics Araçatuba Dental School São Paulo State University (UNESP)
dc.format.extente518-e528
dc.identifierhttp://dx.doi.org/10.4317/medoral.22954
dc.identifier.citationMedicina Oral Patologia Oral y Cirugia Bucal, v. 24, n. 4, p. e518-e528, 2019.
dc.identifier.doi10.4317/medoral.22954
dc.identifier.issn1698-6946
dc.identifier.issn1698-4447
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85069264509
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11449/189416
dc.language.isoeng
dc.relation.ispartofMedicina Oral Patologia Oral y Cirugia Bucal
dc.rights.accessRightsAcesso restrito
dc.sourceScopus
dc.subjectDental implants
dc.subjectImmediate placement
dc.subjectInfection
dc.subjectSystematic review
dc.subjectTooth socket
dc.titleImmediate dental implants placed into infected sites present a higher risk of failure than immediate dental implants placed into non-infected sites: Systematic review and meta-analysisen
dc.typeResenha

Arquivos