Success Rates and Complications Associated with Single Immediate Implants: A Systematic Review

Charn Thanissorn, Jason Guo, Dianna Jing Ying Chan, Bryar Koyi, Omar Kujan, Nabil Khzam, Leticia Algarves Miranda

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

20 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

This study examined the success rates of single immediate implants and their associated biological, hardware and aesthetic complications. Using a developed search strategy, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on single-unit immediate implants with at least six human participants, a minimum follow-up time of 12 months and published between January 1999 and January 2021 were identified. Data was extracted independently using pre-designed data extraction forms. Information on success rates and associated biological, hardware and aesthetic complications were obtained and assessed. Out of 191 potentially eligible studies, 26 RCTs assessing 1270 patients with a total of 1326 single implants were included and further evaluated. In this review, success rate was reported to be 96.7–100% over a total of 9 studies. However, there was a lack of consensus on a universal success criterion between authors emphasizing the need for agreement. The average follow up was 29 months and most reported complications were aesthetic (63 cases, 4.7%), whilst there were relatively fewer biological, (20 cases, 1.5%), and hardware complications (24 cases, 1.8%). Success rate is an uncommon clinical outcome with 9 out of 26 of the selected RCTs reporting it. In these studies, single immediate implants showed a high success rate with low numbers of biological and hardware complications, and high patient satisfaction with aesthetics were reported in the short-term follow-up of one year.

Original languageEnglish
Article number31
JournalDentistry Journal
Volume10
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Feb 2022

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Success Rates and Complications Associated with Single Immediate Implants: A Systematic Review'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this