This one-year study shows that connective tissue grafting in single, immediately placed and provisionalized implants leads to less recession of the peri-implant soft tissue at the mid-buccal aspect, irrespective of the gingival biotype (www.trialregister.nl: TC3815).

ObjectiveTo volumetrically compare peri‐implant mid‐facial soft tissue changes in immediately placed and provisionalized implants in the aesthetic zone, with or without a connective tissue graft.Material and methodsSixty patients were included. All implants were placed immediately after extraction. After randomization, in one group, a connective tissue graft (test group, n = 30) was inserted at the buccal aspect of the implant. The other group (control group, n = 30) received no connective tissue graft. Clinical parameters, digital photographs and conventional impressions were obtained before extraction (T pre) and at 12 months following definitive crown placement (T 12). The casts were digitized by a laboratory scanner, and a volumetric analysis was performed between T pre and T 12.ResultsTwenty‐five patients in each group were available for analysis at T 12. Volumetric change, transformed to a mean (±SD) change in thickness, was −0.68 ± 0.59 mm (test) and −0.49 ± 0.54 mm (control) with a non‐significant difference between groups (p = .189). The mid‐facial mucosa level was significantly different between both groups (p = .014), with a mean (±SD) change of +0.20 ± 0.70 mm (test) and −0.48 ± 1.13 mm (control). The Pink Esthetic Score was similar between both groups.ConclusionsThe use of a CTG in immediately placed and provisionalized implants in the aesthetic zone did not result in less mucosal volume loss after 12 months, leading to the assumption that a CTG cannot fully compensate for the underlying facial bone loss, although a significantly more coronally located mid‐facial mucosa level was found when a CTG was performed.

Soft-tissue grafting at single implant placement in preserved alveolar ridges does not result in a better esthetic outcome or in better peri-implant health and should not be considered as a standard procedure.