Effect of different wound closure interventions on the clinical outcomes following immediate implant placement in the aesthetic area: A network meta-analysis based on thirty-four studies.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to systematically compare and assess the effect of various wound closure interventions on the clinical outcomes following immediate implant placement (IIP) in the esthetic zone.

DATA

Studies comparing the clinical effect of different interventions in the process of wound closure in IIP were included.

SOURCES

A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese Science and Technology Periodical Database (VIP), and Wanfang Database.

STUDY SELECTION

A total of 34 studies involving 1213 implants and eight interventions were included in the network meta-analysis (NMA). The agreement between reviewers reached a kappa value of 0.84. In terms of reducing marginal peri-implant recession (MPR), as the primary outcome, NMA showed that connective tissue graft (CTG) [MD = -0.44, 95 % CI (-0.56, -0.33)], collagen matrix (CM) [MD = -0.32, 95 % CI (-0.46, -0.17)] and CGF [MD = -0.11, 95 %CI (-0.16, -0.06)] showed significant less MPR than the control group, and CTG [MD = -0.33, 95 %CI (-0.46, -0.20)] and CM [MD = -0.20, 95 %CI (-0.36, -0.05)] were also associated with less MPR compared to concentrate growth factor (CGF). The optimal intervention to prevent MPR was CTG. Among the secondary outcomes, CTG was determined as the optimal intervention to increase gingival thickness (GT), CGF ranked as the promising intervention to reduce marginal bone loss (MBL) and improve pink aesthetic score (PES).

CONCLUSION

The use of CTF could enhance soft tissue stability by minimizing MPR and increasing GT in the process of wound closure in IIP, and CGF could better prevent MBL and improving PES. However, the findings related to CGF were based on a limited number of studies.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

CTG and CGF ought to be worthy of clinical promotion to intervene wound closure of IIP in esthetic area, with the ability of improving the peri-implant soft and hard tissues. However, clinicians should still consider the specific clinical situation when selecting the most appropriate intervention or alternative materials.