Journal
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY
Volume 49, Issue 9, Pages 1220-1231Publisher
CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2018.04.002
Keywords
flapless; full thickness; surgical approach; dental implant; systematic review
Categories
Funding
- Sao Paulo Research Foundation - Scholarship: FAPESP [2015/24442-8]
Ask authors/readers for more resources
No consensus has been reached regarding the influence of the flapless and open-flap surgical techniques on the placement of dental implants. This systematic review compared the effects of flapless implant placement and implant placement with elevation of the mucoperiosteal flap in terms of marginal bone loss, implant survival rate and complications rates. This review followed PRISMA guidelines and was registered in PROSPERO with the registration number CRD42017071475. Two independent reviewers performed a comprehensive search of the PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases for studies published until December 2017. The search identified 559 references. After a detailed review, 24 studies were assessed for eligibility. A total of 1025 patients who had received a total of 1873 dental implants were included. There were no significant differences between the flapless and open-flap surgical techniques in terms of implant survival rates (P = 0.34; risk ratio (RR): 1.36; confidence interval (CI): 0.72-2.56), marginal bone loss (P = 0.23; MD: -0.20; CI: -0.52-0.13), or complication rates (P = 0.67; RR: 1.10; CI: 0.70-1.73). The current meta-analysis showed that the implant survival rate, marginal bone levels, and complications of flapless surgery were similar to those of open-flap surgery over a mean follow-up period of 21.62 months.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available