Immediate post-extraction implants subject to immediate loading: a meta-analytic study.

Since Brånemark first started developing its implant system, there has been a continuous and significant evolution in oral implantology through experimental and clinical research, and many of the concepts that were once considered valid have now become the subject of debate. The insertion of the imp...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores: Enríquez-Sacristán, C., Barona Dorado, Cristina, Calvo Guirado, José Luis, Leco Berrocal, María Isabel, Martínez González, José María
Tipo de recurso: artículo
Fecha de publicación:2011
País:España
Institución:Universidad Complutense de Madrid (UCM)
Repositorio:Docta Complutense
Idioma:inglés
OAI Identifier:oai:docta.ucm.es:20.500.14352/131290
Acceso en línea:https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14352/131290
Access Level:acceso abierto
Palabra clave:616.314-089.843
Immediate post-extraction
Immediate loading
Implant survival rate
Odontología (Odontología)
Cirugía bucofacial
Implantes dentales
3201 Ciencias Clínicas
3213.13 Ortodoncia-Estomatología
3213 Cirugía
Descripción
Sumario:Since Brånemark first started developing its implant system, there has been a continuous and significant evolution in oral implantology through experimental and clinical research, and many of the concepts that were once considered valid have now become the subject of debate. The insertion of the implant immediately after extraction of the tooth to be substituted has now become the implant treatment of choice and is associated with preserving the bone structure and the gingival architecture, as well as with reducing the treatment time, which ultimately benefits the patient. Objective: To evaluate the success rate of the immediate post-extraction implants (IPI) subject to immediate loading. Study design: A meta-analytic study was carried out on 659 immediate post-extraction implants obtained from a bibliographic review of 25 articles published within the last 9 years. Results: We obtained a sample of 322 patients who had been treated with a total of 659 implants placed immediately following extraction. The mean age of the patients was 51 years old. A total of 441 implants were inserted in the maxilla, 152 in the mandible and 64 were placed in an unspecified location. The survival rate ranged between 85% and 100%. Conclusions: Immediate post-extraction implant treatment is an implant alternative with a survival rate similar to that of the conventional technique for implant placement and enables preserving both the bone structure and gingival architecture, as well as providing immediate functional loading, thus improving the quality of the treatment as far as the patient is concerned.