Esthetic, clinical, and radiographic outcomes of two surgical approaches for single implant in the esthetic area: 1-year results of a randomized controlled trial with parallel design.

AIM: The objectives of this study were to compare (a) esthetic, (b) clinical, (c) radiographic, and (d) patient-centered outcomes following immediate (Type 1) and early implant placement (Type 2). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Forty-six subjects needing a single extraction (premolar to premolar) were randomly allocated to Type 1 or Type 2 implant placement. One year following permanent restoration, evaluation of (a) Esthetics using soft tissue positions, and the pink and white esthetic scores (PES/WES), (b) Clinical performance using probing depth, modified plaque index, and sulcus bleeding index (c) Radiographic bone level, and (d) Patient satisfaction by means of visual analogue scales (VAS) was recorded. RESULTS: Thirty-five patients completed the one-year examination (Type 1, n = 20; Type 2, n = 15). Type 1 implants lost 1.03 ± 0.24 mm (mean ± SE) of mid-facial soft tissue height while Type 2 implants lost 1.37 ± 0.28 mm (p = 0.17). The papillae height on the mesial and distal was reduced about 1 mm following both procedures. Frequency of clinical acceptability as defined by PES ≥ 6 (Type 1: 55% vs. Type 2 40%), WES ≥ 6 (Type 1: 45% vs. Type 2 27%) was not significantly different between groups (p > 0.05). Clinical and radiographic were indicative of peri-implant health. Patient-centered outcomes failed to demonstrate significant differences between the two cohorts. CONCLUSION: One year after final restoration, there were no significant differences in esthetic, clinical, radiographic, and patient-centered outcomes following Type 1 and Type 2 implant placement. At one year, patient satisfaction may be achieved irrespective of the two placement protocols.

Esthetic, clinical and patient-centered outcomes of immediately placed implants (Type 1) and early placed implants (Type 2): preliminary 3-month results of an ongoing randomized controlled clinical trial.

AIM: The objective of the study was to compare (i) esthetic, (ii) clinical and (iii) patient-centered outcomes following immediate (Type 1) and early implant placement (Type 2). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thirty-eight subjects needing a single extraction (premolar to premolar) were randomly allocated to Type 1 or Type 2 implant placement. Three months following permanent crown insertion, evaluation of (i) esthetic outcomes using soft tissue positions, and the pink and white esthetic scores (PES/WES), (ii) clinical performance using probing pocket depth (PPD), modified plaque index (mPI) and modified sulcus bleeding index (mSBI) around each implant and (iii) patient satisfaction by means of a questionnaire using a visual analogue scale (VAS) was performed. RESULTS: Thirty-two patients completed the 3-month follow-up examination (Type 1, n = 17; Type 2, n = 15) with a 100% implant survival rate. Type 1 implants lost 0.54 ± 0.18 mm of mid-facial soft tissue height, while Type 2 implants lost 0.47 ± 0.31 mm (P > 0.05). The papillae height on the mesial and distal was reduced about 1 mm following both procedures. The PES/WES following Type 1 implant placement amounted to 13.7 ± 0.6 and 12.5 ± 0.7 in the Type 2 group (P > 0.05). PPD, mPI and mSBI were low in both groups (P > 0.05). Patient-centered outcomes failed to demonstrate any statistical difference between the two cohorts. CONCLUSION: Three months following final crown delivery, there were no significant differences in esthetic, clinical and patient-centered outcomes following Type 1 and Type 2 implant placement. On the short term, one may achieve good optimal esthetic and clinical results irrespective of these two placement protocols. These results need to be confirmed on the long term.