This article aims to report the comprehensive and up-to-date analysis and evidence of the insertion rate, expulsion rate, removal rate, and utilization rate of immediate placement of intrauterine devices (IUDs) versus delayed placement after artificial abortion. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, CNKI, and Wanfang databases were comprehensively searched up to January 12, 2024 for studies that compared immediate versus delayed insertion of IUDs after abortion. The evaluation metrics included the number of IUD insertion after surgical or medical abortions, the frequency of expulsion and removal at 6 months or 1 year, the number of continued usage, pain intensity scores, the number of infections, the duration of bleeding, and instances of uterine perforation during or after IUD insertion. Ten randomized controlled articles were eligible, comprising 11 research projects, of which 3 projects involved the placement of an IUD after surgical abortion, and 8 projects involved the placement of an IUD after medical abortion. This included 2025 patients (977 in the immediate insertion group and 1,048 in the delayed insertion group). We summarized all the extracted evidence. The meta-analysis results indicated that for post-surgical abortions, the immediate insertion group exhibited a higher IUD placement rate than the delayed insertion group. After medical abortions, the immediate insertion group showed higher rates of IUD placement, utilization, and expulsion at 6 months or 1 year. The two groups showed no statistically significant differences in the removal rate, post-insertion infection rate, pain scores during insertion, and days of bleeding during the follow-up period. Compared to delayed placement, immediate insertion of IUDs can not only increase the usage rate at 6 months or 1 year but also enhance the placement rate.

Background: Immediate implant placement into extraction sockets has become a widely acceptable treatment option to decrease treatment time and enhance esthetics. The objectives of this study were to assess and compare the survival rates of immediate and delayed implant treatment as well as to investigate the effect of patient- and site-related variables on the treatment outcome in a large-scale population-based study. Methods: Dental records of patients who received implant therapy were retrieved from the electronic records of the University of Minnesota School of Dentistry. Demographic characteristics, dental insurance status, socioeconomic status as well as medical history and tobacco use were recorded. The treatment outcome was included as a binary variable (survival/failure). Time to failure (date of procedure to date of visit with failure) was compared between immediate and delayed implant treatment in Cox regression models. Kaplan−Meier plots for the survival of both treatment modalities were created. Patient-sites without failure were censored at the last follow-up visit. Results: A total of 4519 records of implants were included. The sample mean age was 60.27 years and included 50.7% males and 12.9% tobacco users. High socioeconomic status was characterized for 82.3% of the included population and 63.0% of them were self-payers. Immediate implants were significantly more frequently placed in the maxillary arch (p < 0.001) than in the mandible. Tobacco users received more often a delayed rather than an immediate implant placement (p = 0.001). The survival rate analysis revealed there were no significant differences between immediate and delayed implant placements (p = 0.48). The mean follow-up time was 32.27 months during which 1.5% immediate and 1.1% delayed implants were removed. The estimated mean survival time for immediate implants was 68.90 months, while delayed implants placed in healed sockets showed a mean survival time of 75.11 months. A statistically significant association was found between gender (p = 0.03) and osteoporosis (p = 0.001) with treatment outcome. Conclusions: The placement of immediate implants achieved similarly high survival rates when compared to delayed implants placed in healed sites. Males and osteoporotic individuals showed significantly higher implant failure than females and non-osteoporotic patients. This study demonstrated that both immediate and delayed implant placements are sound options with predictable treatment outcome.

BACKGROUND: The availability of modern contraception including long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARC), is a fundamental component of postabortion care. Findings from a recent randomized controlled trial (RCT) in South Africa comparing immediate to delayed insertion of the copper intrauterine device (IUD) after medical abortion (MA) at 17-20 gestational weeks showed that immediate insertion resulted in higher IUD use at 6 weeks postabortion, but that expulsion rates were significantly higher than for delayed insertion. This study aims to explore barriers, facilitators, and context-specific factors relevant to the implementation of immediate IUD provision after second trimester medical abortion.
METHODS: We performed a qualitative study alongside the RCT in which we conducted in-depth interviews with 14 staff providing healthcare to study participants and 24 study participants. Research questions explored barriers and facilitators to implementation of immediate IUD insertion, contraceptive decision-making, and the impact of context and supplementary trial activities on service provision. Interviews were recorded and transcribed, with translation into English if needed. We performed a triangulated thematic analysis at the level of the transcribed interview text.
RESULTS: Contraceptive counselling at the abortion facility by a study nurse improved knowledge, corrected misconceptions, and increased demand for the IUD postabortion. Women expressed a clear preference for immediate insertion. Convenience, protection from pregnancy and privacy issues were paramount and women expressed preference for engagement with staff who knew their abortion history, and with whom they had an established connection. Doctors and nurses were generally in favour of immediate insertion and said it could be incorporated into standard care if women wanted this. This contrasted with the need for interventions by the research team to reinforce adherence by staff to provide contraception as allocated during the trial.
CONCLUSIONS: Women and staff favour immediate IUD insertion after second trimester medical abortion, but service delivery may require structures that ensure timely insertion postabortion, continuity of care, communication that mitigates loss to follow-up and training of staff to ensure competence.

OBJECTIVE: To test the null hypothesis of no difference in the implant failure rates, postoperative infection and marginal bone loss for the insertion of dental implants in fresh extraction sockets compared to the insertion in healed sites, against the alternative hypothesis of a difference.
METHODS: Main search terms used in combination: dental implant, oral implant, resh extraction socket, immediate placement, immediate insertion, immediate implant.
METHODS: An electronic search was undertaken in July/2014, in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register plus hand-searching.
METHODS: Eligibility criteria included clinical human studies, either randomized or not.
CONCLUSIONS: The search strategy resulted in 73 publications, with 8,241 implants inserted in sockets (330 failures, 4.00%), and 19,410 in healed sites (599 failures, 3.09%). It is suggested that the insertion of implants in fresh extraction sockets affects the failure rates (RR 1.58, 95% CI 1.27-1.95, P<0.0001). The difference was not statistically significant when studies evaluating implants inserted in maxillae or in mandibles were pooled, or when the studies using implants to rehabilitate patients with full-arch prostheses were pooled; however, it was significant for the studies that rehabilitated patients with implant-supported single crowns and for the controlled studies. There was no apparent significant effect on the occurrence of postoperative infection or on the magnitude of marginal bone loss. The results should be interpreted with caution due to the potential for biases and to the presence of uncontrolled confounding factors in the included studies, most of them not randomized.
CONCLUSIONS: The question whether immediate implants are more at risk for failure than implants placed in mature bone has received increasing attention in the last years. As the philosophies of treatment alter over time, a periodic review of the different concepts is necessary to refine techniques and eliminate unnecessary procedures. This would form a basis for optimum treatment.