• Submission Form (PDF)
• Author Guidelines (PDF)
• Submit

• Accepted Manuscripts

Back

Volume 30 , Issue 1
January/February 2015
Pages 73–94

Efficacy of Two Site-Development Procedures for Implants in the Maxillary Esthetic Region: A Systematic Review

Panagiota Magkavali-Trikka, DDS/Yvone Kirmanidou, DDS/Konstantinos Michalakis, DDS, MSc, PhD/Stefano Gracis, DMD, MSD/Christos Kalpidis, DDS, DSc/Argiris Pissiotis, DDS, MS, PhD/Hiroshi Hirayama, DDS, DMD, MS

PMID: 25615917
DOI: 10.11607/jomi.3652

Purpose: The purpose of this systematic review was to identify studies in which either orthodontic extrusion or bone grafting was used prior to single implant placement in the maxillary esthetic zone and to compare the biologic, functional, and esthetic outcomes of these two approaches. Materials and Methods: An electronic MEDLINE search was conducted by three independent reviewers to identify English-language articles, published in dental journals between January 1992 and August 2013, reporting on single-implant site development accomplished by orthodontic forced eruption of nonrestorable teeth or by bone grafting procedures. The search terms were categorized into four groups comprising a PICO (problem, intervention, comparison, outcome) question. Supplementary manual searches of published full-text articles and related reviews were also performed. Results: The initial database search produced 301 relevant titles. After careful examination and discussion, 32 studies were selected for inclusion. No study directly comparing the two implant site–development methods was identified. The observation periods of the available studies were either short or not stated Conclusion: There is a substantial lack of evidence to determine which method for implant site development is better. Definitive conclusions cannot be drawn, since no clinical trials have directly compared these two methods. All included studies reported separately on the two implant site–development methods and used different protocols. According to the literature reviewed, it seems that both methods of implant site development are effective and neither method is superior. Multicenter studies and randomized clinical trials should be performed to evaluate the efficacy of these two methods.

Full Text PDF File | Order Article

 

 

Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view PDF files. This is a free program available from the Adobe web site.
Follow the download directions on the Adobe web site to get your copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader.