Dataset Information

Comparison of clinical esthetic outcomes of immediately placed implants with and without immediate provisionalization in single-tooth implants of the esthetic area: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

ABSTRACT:

Background

Immediately placed implants with immediate provisionalization have become attractive options for patients and clinicians. However, there is no agreement on the esthetic advantages of immediately placed implants with immediate provisionalization. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis will be to assess the effect of immediate provisionalization on the clinical esthetic outcomes of immediately placed implants in a single-tooth implant of the esthetic area.

Methods

An electronic search of MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Clinicaltrials.org., Cochrane Library, China Biology Medicine (CBM), Wan Fang Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure Database (CNKI), and VIP Science Technology Periodical Database will be performed. The search will be carried out in the databases for articles published until May 2021. Two researchers will independently perform the literature selection, data extraction and quality assessment. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting on the impact of immediate provisionalization on the clinical esthetic outcomes of implants immediately placed in a single-tooth implant of the aesthetic area will be included. The primary outcome of this study will be the esthetic outcome assessed by the objective index and patient satisfaction. The survival rate of implants and restorations and the changes in mucosa and bone around implants will also be analyzed. The included studies will be analyzed by Review Manager 5.3, and a meta-analysis will be performed.

Results

The study will evaluate the clinical esthetic outcomes of immediately placed implants with and without immediate provisionalization in single-tooth implants of the esthetic area. The results will provide clinicians with a better treatment approach in their application.

Conclusion

This systematic review and meta-analysis will provide more reliable, evidence-based data for the impact of immediate provisionalization on the clinical esthetic outcomes of immediately placed implants, which may or may not be beneficial.

Registration number

PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021221669.

SUBMITTER: Dong J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8519431 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundOrofacial cleft, one of the most common congenital deformities, presents with a plethora of defects, subjecting the patient to a multitude of treatments from a young age. Among the oral hard tissue problems, absence of a maxillary permanent tooth in the cleft region either due to congenital absence or extraction due to compromised prognosis is a common finding. Conventionally, the missing tooth is replaced using a removable or fixed partial denture; however, the treatment modality does not satisfactorily meet patient expectations. The most recent decade has seen increasing use of dental implants in the cleft region; however, the outcome of an immediately loaded dental implant is still elusive for orofacial cleft patients.ObjectiveThis protocol is for a single-arm clinical trial aimed at determining the treatment outcome of immediately loaded dental implants in patients with a nonsyndromic orofacial cleft.MethodsPatients meeting the set criteria will be sequentially enrolled until a sample size of 30 dental implants is met and will undergo the proposed treatment according to the predecided protocol. All patients will be followed up at the designated time intervals to record various clinical and radiographic parameters. Implant success will be defined based on the criteria elucidated by Misch et al in the Pisa, Italy Consensus. A quality-of-life assessment questionnaire will also be recorded at the end of patient's follow-up to determine their acceptance of the treatment.ResultsA total of 30 dental implants will be placed in patients with a nonsyndromic orofacial cleft. Obtained results will be statistically analyzed to determine the treatment outcomes and success.ConclusionsThis study will help determine the feasibility of immediately loaded dental implants in compromised bone sites such as those presented in cleft patients and will help in generating findings that can be used to fill the lacunae currently present in the holistic treatment of cleft patients.Trial registrationClinical Trial Registry of India CTRI/2020/09/027997; http://ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/showallp.php?mid1=47659&EncHid=&userName=dental%20implants.International registered report identifier (irrid)PRR1-10.2196/25244.

Project description:Although neurophysiological and psychophysical proof of osseoperception is accumulating, histomorphometric evidence for the neural mechanisms of functional compensation following immediate and delayed implant loading is still lacking. For this randomized split-mouth study, six mongrel dogs randomly received one of four treatment protocols at 36 implant-recipient sites over 16 weeks (third maxillary incisor, third and fourth mandibular premolar): immediate implant placement and immediate loading (IIP+IL); delayed implant placement and delayed loading (DIP+DL); delayed implant placement and immediate loading (DIP+IL); and natural extraction socket healing (control). Histomorphometry was performed in the peri-implant bone and soft tissues within 300 µm around the implants. Immunocytochemistry and transmission electron microscopy were used to confirm the presence of neural structures and to reveal their ultrastructural characteristics, respectively. Myelinated nerve fibres densely populated the peri-implant crestal gingival and apical regions, although they were also identified in the woven bone and in the osteons near the implant threads. Compared with the control group in the mandible, the group that received IIP+IL showed a higher innervation (in N⋅mm⁻², 5.94 ± 1.12 vs. 3.15 ± 0.63, P<0.001) and smaller fibre diameter (in µm, 1.37 ± 0.05 vs. 1.64 ± 0.13, P=0.016), smaller axon diameter (in µm, 0.89 ± 0.05 vs. 1.24 ± 0.10, P=0.009) and g-ratio (0.64 ± 0.04 vs. 0.76 ± 0.05, P<0.001) in the middle region around the implants. Compared with DIP+IL in the mandible, IIP+IL had a higher nerve density (in N⋅mm⁻², 13.23 ± 2.54 vs. 9.64 ± 1.86, P=0.027), greater fibre diameter (in µm, 1.32 ± 0.02 vs. 1.20 ± 0.04, P=0.021), greater axon diameter (in µm, 0.92 ± 0.01 vs. 0.89 ± 0.03, P=0.035) and lower g-ratio (0.69 ± 0.01 vs. 0.74 ± 0.01, P=0.033) in the apical region around the implants. It may be assumed that the treatment protocol with IIP+IL is the preferred method to allow optimized peri-implant re-innervation, but further functional measurements are still required.