Immediate single-tooth implant placement in bony defect sites: A 10-year randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether an intact buccal bony plate is a prerequisite for immediate implant placement in postextraction sockets. The aim of this 10-year randomized controlled trial was to compare peri-implant soft and hard tissue parameters, esthetic ratings of, and patient-reported satisfaction with immediate implant placement in postextraction sockets with buccal bony defects ≥5 mm in the esthetic zone versus delayed implant placement after alveolar ridge preservation. METHODS: Patients presenting a failing tooth in the esthetic region and a buccal bony defect ≥5 mm after an extraction were randomly assigned to immediate (Immediate Group, n = 20) or delayed (Delayed Group, n = 20) implant placement. The second-stage surgery and provisional restoration placement occurred 3 months after implant placement in both groups, followed by definitive restorations 3 months thereafter. During a 10-year follow-up period, marginal bone levels (primary outcome), buccal bone thickness, soft tissue parameters, esthetics, and patient-reported satisfaction were recorded. RESULTS: The mean marginal bone level change was -0.71 ± 0.59 mm and -0.36 ± 0.39 mm in the Immediate Group and the Delayed Group after 10 years (p = 0.063), respectively. The secondary outcomes were not significantly different between both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Marginal bone level changes, buccal bone thickness, clinical outcomes, esthetics, and patients' satisfaction following immediate implant placement, in combination with bone augmentation in postextraction sockets with buccal bony defects ≥5 mm, were not statistically different to those following delayed implant placement after ridge preservation in the esthetic zone. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Immediate implant placement in case of a failing tooth is a favorable treatment option for patients because it considerably shortens treatment time and the number of surgical treatments. The question is if an intact buccal bone wall is necessary for immediate implant placement. A 10-year study was performed in which 20 patients with a failing tooth in the frontal region of the upper jaw were treated with immediate implant placement and were compared with 20 patients in whom a more conventional treatment strategy was followed in which the failing tooth was first removed and the bone gap restored and the implant placed in a second step. After a 10-year follow-up period, it appeared that the bone around the implant was very stable, gums were healthy, and patients were very satisfied with the result. There was no difference between the two treatment procedures. Such results mean that professionals can discuss the procedure with the patient and apply the individual's preference.

Immediate implant placement with immediate or delayed provisionalization in the maxillary aesthetic zone: A 10-year randomized trial.

AIM: To compare the marginal bone level of immediately placed implants, with either immediate or delayed provisionalization (IP or DP), in the maxillary aesthetic zone after 10 years of function. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participants with a failing tooth in the maxillary aesthetic zone were randomly assigned to immediate implant placement with either IP (n = 20) or DP (n = 20) after primary wound closure with a free gingival graft. The final restoration was placed 3 months after provisionalization. The primary outcome was change in marginal bone level. In addition, implant survival, restoration survival and success, peri-implant tissue health, mucosa levels, aesthetic indices, buccal bone thickness and patient satisfaction were evaluated. RESULTS: After 10 years, the mean mesial and distal changes in marginal bone level were -0.47 ± 0.45 mm and -0.49 ± 0.52 mm in the IP group and -0.58 ± 0.76 mm and -0.41 ± 0.72 mm in the DP group (p = .61; p = .71). The survival rate was 100% for the implants; for the restorations, it was 88.9% in the IP group and 87.5% in the DP group. Restoration success, according to modified USPHS criteria, was 77.8% in the IP group and 75.0% in the DP group. The prevalence of peri-implant mucositis was 38.9% and 35.7% and of peri-implantitis 0.0% and 6.3%, respectively, in the IP group and DP group (p = 1.0; p = .40). The Pink Esthetic Score and White Esthetic Score was 15.28 ± 2.32 in the IP group and 14.64 ± 2.74 in the DP group, both clinically acceptable (p = .48). The buccal bone thickness was lower in the DP group. Patient satisfaction was similar in both groups (p = .75). CONCLUSIONS: The mean marginal bone level changes after immediate implant placement with IP were similar to those after immediate placement with DP. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered in the National Trial Register (NL9340).

Immediate single-tooth implant placement with simultaneous bone augmentation versus delayed implant placement after alveolar ridge preservation in bony defect sites in the esthetic region: A 5-year randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear if an intact buccal bony plate is a prerequisite for immediate implant placement in post-extraction sockets. The aim of this 5-year randomized controlled trial was therefore comparison of peri-implant soft and hard tissue parameters, esthetic ratings, and patient-reported satisfaction of immediate implant placement in post-extraction sockets with buccal bony defects of ≥ 5 mm in the esthetic zone, with delayed implant placement after ridge preservation. METHODS: Patients presenting a failing tooth in the esthetic region and a buccal bony defect of ≥ 5 mm after extraction were randomly assigned to immediate (Immediate group, n = 20) or delayed (Delayed group, n = 20) implant placement. Second-stage surgery and placement of a provisional restoration occurred 3 months after implant placement in both groups, followed by definitive restorations 3 months thereafter. The follow-up was 5 years. Marginal bone level (primary outcome), buccal bone thickness, soft tissue parameters, esthetics, and patient-reported satisfaction were recorded. RESULTS: Mean marginal bone level change was -0.71 ± 0.35 mm and -0.54 ± 0.41 mm in respectively the Immediate group and the Delayed group after 5 years (P = 0.202). This difference, and in other variables, was not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Marginal bone level changes, buccal bone thickness, clinical outcomes, esthetics, and patients' satisfaction following immediate implant placement, in combination with bone augmentation in post-extraction sockets with buccal bony defects of ≥ 5 mm, were comparable to those following delayed implant placement after ridge preservation in the esthetic zone.

Buccal bone thickness at dental implants in the aesthetic zone: A 1-year follow-up cone beam computed tomography study.

Sufficient buccal bone thickness (BBT) is important for an optimal aesthetic outcome of implant treatment in the aesthetic zone. The aim of the study was to assess BBT at dental implants placed in the aesthetic zone (incisor, canine or first premolar in the maxilla) (immediate or delayed, with or without immediate provisionalization) with cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) as a function of time. Eighty patients were divided into 4 groups according to size of the buccal bony defect (<5 or ≥5 mm) after removal of the tooth, and timing of implant placement and provisionalization. CBCTs were made 1 month and 1 year after placement of the implant crown. BBT varied from 0.79 mm to 2.12 mm at 1 month and from 0.71 mm to 2.04 mm at 1 year. Change of BBT between 1 month and 1 year was negligible. This study concluded that BBT at dental implants in the aesthetic zone appears to be stable for immediate and delayed placed implants after placement of the definitive crown, independent of the size of buccal bone defect prior to implant insertion and timing of provisionalization.

Immediate Single-Tooth Implant Placement in Bony Defects in the Esthetic Zone: A 1-Year Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to assess, with regard to marginal bone level (MBL), whether the outcome of immediate implant placement in bony defects in the esthetic zone was non-inferior to delayed implant placement after 1 year. METHODS: Forty patients with a failing tooth in the esthetic zone and a labial bony defect of ≥5 mm after removal of a tooth were randomly assigned for immediate (n = 20) or delayed (n = 20) implant placement. Second-stage surgery and provisionalization occurred after 3 months of healing. Follow-up was at 1 month and 1 year after definitive crown placement. The study was powered to detect a difference in MBL of >0.9 mm. Buccal bone thickness, soft tissue peri-implant parameters, esthetic indices, and patient satisfaction were also assessed. RESULTS: One year after definitive crown placement, MBL loss was 0.56 ± 0.39 mm mesially and 0.74 ± 0.51 mm distally for the immediate placement group and 0.51 ± 0.43 mesially and 0.54 ± 0.45 distally mm for the delayed placement group, respectively (not significant). Regarding differences in means, non-inferiority was observed after 1 year (difference in mean for immediate versus delayed: mesially 0.04 mm [95% confidence interval (CI) = -0.22 to 0.30 mm, P = 0.40]; distally 0.21 mm [95% CI = -0.10 to 0.51 mm, P = 0.58]). No significant differences in the other outcome variables were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Immediate implant placement with delayed provisionalization was non-inferior to delayed implant placement with delayed provisionalization in labial bony defects of ≥5 mm regarding change in MBL. Although not powered for other outcome variables, no clinically relevant differences were observed in these variables.