The Use of Tissue Grafts Associated with Immediate Implant Placement to Achieve Better Peri-Implant Stability and Efficacy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Background: The goal of this systematic study and meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy of hard and/or soft tissue grafts associated with type-1 implants on healing and treatment outcomes. The primary outcomes studied were implant survival rate, pocket depth, marginal peri-implant recession, bone loss, bone thickness (volumetric change), interproximal bone level, mesial and distal papilla migration, and radiographic evaluation; and the secondary parameters were Pink Esthetic Score (PES), vertical distance from implant shoulder and bone, Visual Analogue Score (VAS), Implant Stability Quotient (ISQ), and biological complications (fistulas, pain, mucositis, and peri-implantitis). Methods: The PICO strategy was used to formulate the hypothesis under study: “For patients who underwent extraction and immediate implant placement, what is the efficacy of using any type of graft (bone or soft tissue) compared to non-grafting regarding the peri-implant parameters?” The electronic search process was performed on the MedLine/PubMed and Cochrane databases. It included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from the last 11 years (from 2012 to November 2023), which were identified and analyzed. Results: Nine RCTs (κ = 0.98) were selected (403 patients and 425 implants); they were divided into three groups: bone graft (75 patients and 75 implants inserted), bone graft and membrane (213 patients and 235 implants inserted), and without bone graft (115 patients and 115 implants inserted). Three studies calculated the mid-facial mucosa level and two reported better results when a connective tissue graft was combined with the xenograft, whereas another study found better results in the combination of a dual-zone technique with a xenograft. Three studies evaluated the total Pink Esthetic Score (PES) at 12 months, where the authors found no significant difference in using a xenogeneic graft with or without a membrane. In the same period, the facial bone thickness was assessed in two articles; the authors reported better results in graft-treated and flapless groups. The risk-of-bias assessment found four studies with low risk, four with moderate risk, and one with a high risk of bias. The meta-analysis showed a medium level of heterogeneity for the mid-facial mucosa level analysis (I2 = 46%) and an overall effect size of 0.79 (95% CI [0.18; 1.40]), a statistically significant results (p = 0.01), with a tendency to favor the experimental group. Also, there was a medium level of heterogeneity among studies regarding total PES (I2 = 45%), with no significant differences between studies (p = 0.91). Homogeneous results (I2 = 0%) were found among studies analyzing facial bone thickness, favoring the experimental group; the forest plot showed an effect of 0.37 (95% CI [0.25; 0.50]), which was statistically significant (p < 0.00001) for this parameter. Conclusions: Then, it was possible to conclude that using bone and soft tissue grafting techniques associated with immediate implant placement (IIP), even though they are not fundamental, was a valuable resource to prevent significant tissue reduction, reaching greater bone stability and higher levels in the Pink Esthetic Score (PES) and Visual Analogue Score (VAS).