{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018494897959183673, 'fraction_numerical': 0.011479591836734694, 'mean_word_length': 5.430327868852459, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Immediate implant placement in periodontally infected sites- A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Aims
The purpose of this meta-analysis is to systematically evaluate published evidence literature pertaining to report the differences in the survival rate of immediate implant placement in infected sites and non-infected sites.


Materials and methods
After the application of the search strategy in PUBMED, SCOPUS, and EMBASE research databases, a total of 1864 papers were found. Titles and abstracts were screened, yielding 77 full-text papers. After the overall assessment, 23 articles were recruited based on the inclusion criteria for analysis of data.


Results
Out of 23 studies, 14 studies were combined to assess the risk ratio of survival rate of immediate implant placement between infected and non-infected sites, depicting no significant difference on the survival rate. Further pooled estimate of proportion of survival rates were 0.98 suggesting 98% survival rate of immediate implants placed in infected sockets when 9 retrospective and prospective studies (no control studies) were combined. These findings demonstrate that successful outcomes can be expected for immediate implants when placed into infected extraction sockets.


Conclusions
Within the limitations of this systematic review, equal predictability for successful osseointegration and long-term functioning of immediate implants was found in infected as well as in healthy extraction sites, but astringent antiseptic environment is mandatory for wound healing of immediate implants.