Immediate implant placement with flap or flapless surgery: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Abstract

AbstractAimTo assess the impact of mucoperiosteal flap elevation for single immediate implant placement (IIP) on buccal hard and soft tissue changes, and on clinical, aesthetic and patient‐reported outcomes.Materials and MethodsTwo independent reviewers conducted an electronic literature search in Pubmed, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane databases as well as a manual search to identify eligible clinical studies up to June 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IIP without flap elevation to IIP with flap elevation were included for a qualitative and quantitative analysis. The primary outcome was horizontal buccal bone change. Secondary outcomes were implant survival, vertical buccal bone change, pain, and clinical and aesthetic parameters.ResultsOut of 1029 records, 5 RCTs were selected reporting on 140 patients who received 140 single immediate implants (flapless: 68; flap: 72). Patients had a mean age ranging from 30 to 67 years and were followed between 6 and 12 months. Four RCTs pertained to (nearly) intact alveoli. Risk of bias assessment yielded low risk for two RCTs and high risk for three RCTs. Meta‐analysis demonstrated a mean difference of 0.48 mm (95% confidence interval [CI] [0.13, 0.84], p = .007) in horizontal buccal bone change between surgical approaches, favouring flapless surgery. Meta‐analysis failed to demonstrate a significant difference in implant survival between the groups (RR 1.00, 95% CI [0.93, 1.07], p = .920). Given the scarcity of data, meta‐analyses could not be performed on other secondary outcomes. Available studies were consistent in the direction of the effect favouring flapless surgery for vertical buccal bone change as well as for pain. Clinical and aesthetic parameters were underreported.ConclusionsBased on CBCT data, flapless surgery resulted in more buccal bone preservation at immediate implants. However, the clinical relevance of this finding is unclear, since clinical and aesthetic outcomes were underreported.