Comparison of immediate implant placement in infected and non-infected extraction sockets: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

<bold>Objective: </bold>This review aimed to investigate the feasibility of immediate implant placement in infected extraction sockets.<bold>Material and Methods: </bold>We performed electronic and manual searches up to March 2017 to obtain data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized controlled clinical trials (CCTs). Using a fixed-effects model to assess the difference in survival rate (primary outcome), we evaluated the risk difference for immediate implant placement in infected and non-infected sites. We estimated the weighted mean differences (WMDs) of the change in marginal bone loss (MBL), probing depth (PD), modified bleeding index (mBI), marginal gingival level (MGL) and width of keratinized gingiva (WKG) at baseline and latest follow-up.<bold>Results: </bold>In total, five studies (0 RCT, five CCTs) were included in the systematic review and three studies were included in the meta-analysis. The risk difference for immediate implant placement in an infected extraction socket compared with that in a non-infected socket was -0.02. WMDs for MBL, PD, mBI, MGL and WKG between the two groups were 0.32, 0.12, 0.07, -0.06, 0.20 and 0.51, respectively. No statistical differences were observed between the two groups, except for the change in WKG.<bold>Conclusions: </bold>Implants can be placed in infected extraction sockets after thorough socket debridement. For aesthetics, WKG should be considered when performing immediate implant placement in infected sites. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]