Background: The conventional implant approach involves flap elevation, which may result in increased soft tissue and bone loss and postoperative morbidity. The flapless surgical technique, aided by three-dimensional medical imaging equipment, is regarded as a possible alternative to the conventional approach to alleviate the above issues. Several studies have been performed regarding the role of flapless implant surgery. However, the results are inconsistent and there is no robust synthesis of long-term evidence to better inform surgeons regarding which type of surgical technique is more beneficial to the long-term prognosis of patients in need of implant insertion.
Aim: To compare the long-term clinical performance after flapless implant surgery to that after the conventional approach with flap elevation.
Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and grey literature databases were searched from inception to 23 September 2019. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies comparing the long-term clinical performance after flapless implant surgery to that after the conventional approach over a follow-up of three years or more were included. Meta-analyses were conducted to estimate the odds ratios (ORs) or mean differences (MDs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) between the long-term implant survival rate, marginal bone loss, and complication rate of the flapless and conventional groups. Subgroup analyses were carried out to account for the possible effects of the guided or free-hand method during flapless surgery.
Results: Ten articles, including four RCTs and six cohort studies, satisfied the eligibility criteria and nine of them were included in the meta-analysis. There was no significant difference between the long-term implant survival rate [OR = 1.30, 95%CI (0.37, 4.54), P = 0.68], marginal bone loss [MD = 0.01, 95%CI (-0.42, 0.44), P = 0.97], and complication rate [OR = 1.44, 95%CI (0.77, 2.68), P = 0.25] after flapless implant surgery and the conventional approach. Moreover, subgroup analyses revealed that there was no statistically significant difference between the implant survival rate [guided: OR = 1.52, 95%CI (0.19, 12.35), P = 0.70]; free-hand: n = 1, could not be estimated), marginal bone loss [guided: MD = 0.22, 95%CI (-0.14, 0.59), P = 0.23; free-hand: MD = -0.27, 95%CI (-1.10, 0.57), P = 0.53], or complication rate [guided: OR = 1.16, 95%CI (0.52, 2.63), P = 0.71; free-hand: OR = 1.75, 95%CI (0.66, 4.63), P = 0.26] in the flapless and conventional groups either with use of the surgical guide or by the free-hand method.
Conclusion: The flapless surgery and conventional approach had comparable clinical performance over three years or more. The guided or free-hand technique does not significantly affect the long-term outcomes of flapless surgery.
Keywords: Complication rate; Computer-assisted surgery; Cone-beam computed tomography; Dental implantation; Flapless implant surgery; Implant survival rate; Marginal bone loss; Minimally invasive surgical procedures.
©The Author(s) 2020. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.