Extracting a canine tooth without an immediate implant leads to alveolar bone resorption.
the verdict
SUPPORTED
the evidence backs this
refutedsupported
the weight of evidence
3 sources for · 0 against
Peer-reviewed literature indicates that the extraction of impacted canines without immediate intervention or stabilization is frequently associated with bone resorption and loss of socket volume.
Background: The reduction in extraction socket volume resulting from spontaneous healing poses challenges for dental implant placement. This systematic review aims to evaluate and compare the multifaceted performance of immediate implant placement (IIP) and alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) in terms of changes in soft and hard tissues of the alveolar ridge, implant failure, postoperative complications, and patient-reported satisfaction following tooth extraction. Methods: An electronic search was conducted utilizing the databases of MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting on the comparisons of IIP and ARP protocols. The primary outcome variables included marginal bone level (MBL), pink esthetic score (PES), and implant failure; secondary outcome variables included postoperative complications, horizontal width change, facial gingival margin change, and patient-reported satisfaction. The Cochrane RoB2 tool was used to assess the risk of bias in RCTs. Weighted or mean differences (MD), odds ratio (OR), and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. The protocol followed the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis statements and was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024503989). Results: Eleven RCTs were included, involving 353 patients in the IIP group and 348 patients in the ARP group. Regarding MBL, the IIP protocol demonstrated a significantly greater reduction in both non-molar (MD = −0.36 mm, 95% CI = −0.64 to 0.07]) and molar regions (MD = −0.41 mm, 95% CI = −0.49 to −0.32]) compared to ARP; however, no statistical differences were observed regarding PES (MD = −0.05, 95% CI = −0.52 to 0.43) or implant failure (OR = 2.09, 95% CI = 0.98 to 4.44). Furthermore, both groups achieved similar outcomes in terms of horizontal width change, facial gingival margin change, and patient-reported satisfaction ( P > .05), except for a higher incidence of postoperative complications observed in the IIP group (p < 0.05). Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, the IIP protocol can achieve comparable esthetic outcomes and implant success as the ARP protocol; however, there may be a higher incidence of postoperative complications and MBL alterations. Further long-term and well-conducted RCTs are warranted to validate the efficacy of these protocols.
Introduction: When impacted maxillary canines are not amenable to orthodontic traction or reimplantation, extraction is the only option available, followed by implant placement; this is a challenge due to the bone resorption frequently associated with complex tooth extraction that often necessitates bone grafting. Immediate dental implant placement appears to be the adequate strategy to replace missing teeth. Objective: The aim of this systematic review was the evaluation of implant placement immediately after removal of maxillary canine impacted. Methods: Detailed search in PubMed and Cochrane databases to obtain information on all reported cases and postoperative outcomes. There were no restrictions with regard to publication status or language of publication. Selection criteria: Only included all clinical reports of at least 1-year follow up and that treated by immediate implant in maxillary canine impacted extraction. Results: The initial database search produced 135 titles, after careful examination only 11 reports considered to be met the criteria for inclusion. The remaining reports were to be no met the criteria for inclusion. The results indicated a success rate significant for the procedure of immediate implant placement into impacted maxillary canine extraction socket accompanied by guided bone regeneration (GBR). This procedure allowing implant anchorage and primary stability to achieved. Conclusion: Our review suggest that this treatment is viable and with a good outcome, although more works is needed to determine adequate the results and thus determine the potential impact of this treatment alternative.
Nowadays, dental implants are the best treatment option for tooth loss, but implant placement requires sufficient bone volume. In defect area of alveolar ridge, augmentation is done by various available methods. Utilizing the growth factors such as platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) derived from patient's blood platelets improve treatment outcome. PRF accelerates the wound healing, enhances osteogenic activity as well as regulates the inflammation. Bone grafting, guided bone regeneration, and ridge-split technique promote new bone formation. The aim of this case report is to demonstrate an efficient method of bone augmentation using sticky bone along with PRF membrane, followed by ridge-split technique and engagement of nasal floor to place implant.
Everything we examined (3)
This check searched the claim as stated. It did not run a separate search for evidence against it.