Post‐extraction implant placement into infected versus non‐infected sites: A multicenter retrospective clinical study

Purpose The aim of this study was to assess whether immediate implant placement into post‐extraction sites presenting a chronic infection poses a greater risk of implant failure than immediate placement in non‐infected sites. Materials and Methods Records of patients who underwent extraction and immediate implant placement into both infected and non‐infected sites from January 1998 to September 2014 at 5 different dental centers were considered for inclusion. Included records were subjected to statistical analysis of survival rates, along with a number of other patient‐, implant‐, surgery‐, and prosthesis‐related variables. Results The inclusion criteria were met by 369 patients who received a total of 527 implants. The follow‐up averaged 53.2 months (range 0.9‐158.3) for implants placed into non‐infected sockets (N = 334) and 50.1 months (range 1.6‐146.1) for those placed into infected sites (N = 193). Seven implants failed in non‐infected sites and 3 in infected ones. All failures occurred within 1 year of placement. Cumulative implant survival rate for non‐infected and infected sites was, respectively, 97.9% ± 0.8% and 98.4% ± 0.9%, being not significantly different (P = .66). None of the investigated variables affected the outcome. Conclusions Placement of implants into periodontally or endodontically infected sites immediately after tooth extraction is a safe option, even when the implants are loaded immediately or early.