Clinical parameters of implants placed in healed sites using flapped and flapless techniques: A systematic review

BACKGROUND Dental implant placement using flapless surgery is a minimally invasive technique that improves blood supply compared with flapped surgery. However, the flapless technique does not provide access to allow bone regeneration. OBJECTIVE The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the clinical parameters following implant surgery in healed sites, using two procedures: flapped vs. flapless surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS A detailed electronic search was carried out in the PubMed/Medline, Embase and Cochrane Library databases. The focused question was, "How do flapped and flapless surgical techniques affect the clinical parameters of dental implants placed in healed sites?". All the studies included with a prospective controlled design were considered separately, depending on whether they had been conducted on animals or humans. The following data were recorded in all the included studies: number of implants, failures, location (maxilla, mandible), type of rehabilitation (partial or single), follow-up and flap design. The variables selected for comparison in the animal studies were the following: flap design, gingival index, mucosal height, recession and probing pocket depth. In humans studies the variables were as follows: flap design, plaque index, gingival index, recession, probing pocket depth, papilla index and keratinized gingiva. RESULTS Ten studies were included, six were experimental studies and four were clinical studies. Studies in animals showed better results using the flapless technique in the parameters analyzed. There is no consensus in the clinical parameters analyzed in human studies, but there is a trend to better results using flapless approach. CONCLUSION The animal studies included in the present review show that implants placed in healed sites with a flapless approach have better clinical parameters than the flapped procedure in a short-term follow-up. In human studies, there is no consensus about which technique offer better results in terms of clinical parameters. Therefore, more research in humans is required in order to overcome the limitations and contrast these results.