Abstract
Statement of problem
With the increased number of published systematic reviews and in view of their wide
clinical applicability, these studies must be carefully assessed before professionals
begin to use their recommendations in daily practice, and above all, the methodological
quality of this study design must be considered. In implant dentistry, one topic that
has been arousing particular interest is the immediate placement of dental implants
into infected sites.
Purpose
The purpose of this systematic review was to determine the methodological quality
of systematic reviews that evaluated the immediate placement of dental implants into
infected sites.
Material and methods
A systematic search was performed by 2 independent reviewers of PubMed, LILACS, and
ISI Web of Knowledge up to March 2016. All selected articles were published in the
English language. Systematic reviews of original papers that assessed the immediate
placement of dental implants into infected sites were eligible for the overview. Narrative
reviews, randomized clinical trials, and case reports were excluded. Methodological
quality assessment was performed using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews.
Results
Of the 5 selected systematic reviews, 3 were low methodological quality and 2 were
assessed as moderate. None were high methodological quality. The first systematic
review of the topic was published in 2010, and the most recent, published in 2015,
was the only one that performed meta-analysis.
Conclusions
The systematic reviews that assessed the immediate placement of dental implants into
infected sites were assessed as low or moderate methodological quality. The topic
focus remains controversial because the implant survival rate, the main outcome considered
for the implant placement prognosis, presents contradictory results.
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Journal of Prosthetic DentistryAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- How objective are systematic reviews? Differences between reviews on complementary medicine.J R Soc Med. 2003; 96: 17-22
- Summing up evidence: one answer is not always enough.Lancet. 1998; 351: 123-127
- Systematic reviews and meta-analysis: understanding the best evidence in primary healthcare.J Family Med Prim Care. 2013; 2: 9-14
- Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews.BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007 15; 7: 10
- Anestesia neuroaxial comparada à anestesia geral para procedimentos na metade inferior do corpo: revisão sistemática de revisões sistemáticas.Rev Bras Anestesiol. 2012; 62: 235-243
- AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews.J Clin Epidemiol. 2009; 62: 1013-1020
- External validation of a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR).PLoS One. 2007; 2: e1350
- Validation of an index of the quality of review articles.J Clin Epidemiol. 1991; 44: 1271-1278
- Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials.N Engl J Med. 1987; 316: 450-455
- A retrospective analysis of immediately placed implants in 418 sites exhibiting periapical pathology: results and clinical considerations.Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012; 27: 194-202
- Timing of implant placement after tooth extraction: immediate, immediate-delayed or delayed implants? A Cochrane systematic review.Eur J Oral Implantol. 2010; 3: 189-205
- Immediate placement of implants into extraction sockets: Implant survival.Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1996; 11: 205-209
- Protocol for immediate implant replacement of infected teeth.Implant Dent. 2012; 21: 287-294
- Immediate placement of implants into infected sites: a systematic review of the literature.J Periodontol. 2010; 81: 801-808
- Immediate implants placed in fresh sockets associated to periapical infectious processes. A systematic review.Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2013; 18: 780-785
- Immediate placement of implants into infected sites: a systematic review.Clin Implant Dent Relat Des. 2015; 17: e1-e16
- Survival analysis and other clinical outcomes of immediate implant placement in sites with periapical lesions: systematic review.Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2015; 30: 268-278
- Immediate dental implant placement into infected vs. non-infected sockets: a meta-analysis.Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016; 27: 1290-1296
- An AMSTAR assessment of the methodological quality of systematic reviews of oral healthcare interventions published in the Journal of Applied Oral Science (JAOS).J Appl Oral Sci. 2011; 19: 440-447
- Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.PLoS Med. 2009; 6: e1000097
- Peri-implantitis: from diagnosis to therapeutics.J Investig Clin Dent. 2012; 3: 79-94
Article info
Publication history
Published online: November 08, 2016
Identification
Copyright
© 2016 by the Editorial Council for The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry.
