Oversized Surgical Preparation of the Implant Site: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Preclinical Studies

To answer the following focus question: In preclinical in vivo experimental models, do oral implants placed in overdimensioned (OD) sites present greater biomechanical properties and histomorphometric parameters of osseointegration compared to implants placed in standard or undersized implant sockets?

Online databases were searched for controlled animal studies reporting on OD sites up to February 2023. The relative implant- final drill discrepancy (IDD) was used to categorize the control and test groups according to surgical drilling protocol: (1) control: undersized (IDD > 0.5 mm) or standard (IDD = 0.2 to 0.5 mm); and (2) test OD: stress-free oversized (IDD = 0.0 to -0.1 mm); test GAP: friction-free oversized (IDD ≤ -0.1 mm). Random-effects meta-analyses were performed for the outcomes of insertion and removal torque values (ITV and RTV, respectively), bone-to-implant contact (%BIC), and bone density (%BD) for short- (0 to 2 weeks), intermediate- (3 to 4 weeks), and long-term (≥ 5 weeks) healing periods.

Of the 527 records identified, 13 studies met the eligibility criteria. Histologically, the OD and GAP groups prevented ischemic necrosis and extensive bone resorption at the bone-implant interface in both the marginal cortical layer and the trabeculae. Faster and increased rates of bone formation, characterized by primary osteons and highly vascularized tissue, took place in OD sites between 1 and 5 weeks of healing. Meta-analyses indicated statistically significant benefits in favor of (1) control vs OD for short-term healing in extraoral sites, with pooled estimates (weighted mean difference) of ITV = 25.35 Ncm, %BIC = 2.10%, and %BD = 26.19%; (2) control vs OD for long-term healing in intraoral sites, with %BD = 11.69%; (3) control vs GAP for intermediate-term healing in extraoral sites, with %BD = 3.03%; and (4) control vs GAP for long-term healing in extraoral sites, with RTV = 5.57 Ncm.

Oversized surgical preparation of the implant site does not seem to provide any additional benefit compared to standard or undersized sites regarding quantitative parameters of osseointegration. However, it does minimize marginal bone resorption and yields better-quality bone healing, despite the comparable results among different experimental animal models in the late postoperative period.