Mix practice, Good Wood Court Dental Practice, 52-54 Cromwell Road, London, BN3 3DX, UK.
Microbial Disease Department, University College London, Eastman Dental Institute, London, WC1E6DE, UK.
Evid Based Dent. 2023 Jun;24(2):93. doi: 10.1038/s41432-023-00902-7. Epub 2023 Jun 5.
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the clinical efficacy of the immediate implant placement (IIP) protocol in the aesthetic zone with early dental implant placement (EIP) protocol.
Electronic databases MEDLINE (via OVID), EMBASE (via OVID), ISI Web of Science core collection, Cochrane, SCOPUS, and Google Scholar were searched for the studies comparing the two clinical protocols. Randomised controlled trials were included. Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (ROB-2) was used to assess the quality of included students.
A total of six studies were selected. Implant failure was observed at 3.84%, 9.3%, and 4.45% in three studies while in the other studies, no implant failure was reported. Meta-analysis of four studies showed no statistically significant difference in the vertical bone levels between IIP and EIP (148 patients), mean difference (MD)0.10 [95% CI: -0.29 to 0.091.32] P > 0.05. Meta-analysis of two studies showed the probing depth between IIP versus EIP was not significantly different (100 patients), mean difference(MD)-0.00 [95% CI; -0.23 to 0.23]; P > 0.05. The pink aesthetic score (PES) was improved in EIP as compared to IIP with a statistically significant difference (P < 0.05).
The available evidence supports the clinical efficacy of the IIP protocol. Present findings indicate aesthetics and clinical results of immediate implant placement protocol are comparable to early and delayed placement protocols. Therefore, future research with long-term follow-up is warranted.
本系统评价和荟萃分析的目的是评估即刻种植（IIP）方案与早期种植（EIP）方案在美学区的临床疗效。
通过 OVID 电子数据库 MEDLINE、EMBASE（通过 OVID）、ISI Web of Science 核心合集、Cochrane、SCOPUS 和 Google Scholar 检索比较两种临床方案的研究。纳入随机对照试验。使用 Cochrane 偏倚风险工具（ROB-2）评估纳入研究的质量。
共纳入 6 项研究。3 项研究中，种植体失败分别为 3.84%、9.3%和 4.45%，而在其他研究中，未报告种植体失败。4 项研究的荟萃分析显示，IIP 和 EIP 之间的垂直骨水平无统计学差异（148 例患者），平均差异（MD）0.10 [95%CI：-0.29 至 0.091.32] P > 0.05。2 项研究的荟萃分析显示，IIP 与 EIP 之间的探诊深度无显著差异（100 例患者），平均差异（MD）-0.00 [95%CI：-0.23 至 0.23]；P > 0.05。EIP 的粉红色美学评分（PES）较 IIP 有显著改善（P < 0.05）。
现有证据支持 IIP 方案的临床疗效。目前的研究结果表明，即刻种植方案的美学和临床效果与早期和延迟种植方案相当。因此，需要进行长期随访的未来研究。
