Clinical and aesthetic outcomes of immediately placed single‐tooth implants with immediate vs. delayed restoration in the anterior maxilla: A retrospective cohort study

Abstract

Within the limits of this study, timing of restoration seemed to positively affect the aesthetic outcomes of immediately placed implants as evidenced by higher median PES values for the immediate restoration group when compared to the delayed restoration group. Restoration timing had no impact on the individual PES variables, except for the distal papillary height which was superior in the immediate restoration group.

Immediate implant placement and provisionalization: Aesthetic outcome 1 year after implant placement. A prospective clinical multicenter study

“…IIPP in the aesthetic maxillary region showed good treatment outcomes at the short term, however, because of underreporting in the literature, aesthetic results and patient outcome did not allow for reliable analysis . As IIPP allows immediate restoration, thereby instantly supporting the papillae and mid‐buccal soft tissue, its aesthetic outcome improves …”

Flapless immediate implant placement and provisionalization in periodontal patients: A retrospective consecutive case‐series study of single‐tooth sites with dehiscence‐type osseous defects

“…We have evaluated 37 single‐tooth implants (3 did not have contralateral tooth), and we have observed a global PES of 12.43 (Table ). The PES global value reflected excellent aesthetic levels (PES ≥ 12) in 29 cases (78.4%), acceptable aesthetic levels (PES = 8–11) in six cases (Pes 16.2%) and aesthetic failure (PES ≤ 7) in two cases (5.4%; Arora & Ivanovski, ; Cosyn et al, ). 46% most frequently obtained value, corresponding to the maximum PES score of 14 (Figure ).…”

“…In order to clarify both aspects, it should be firstly noted that patient's aesthetic assessment in this study was “good” or “very good” in 98% of cases and, in particular, also 98% of patients considered that the aesthetic balance between the replaced tooth and the adjacent teeth was “good” or “very good.” And secondly, it is extremely important to point out the need of more comparative studies of FII&P with wall reconstruction versus early‐implant protocols under the same conditions. Because so far, while some studies that evaluate immediate implants placed by means of a flap approach hypothesize that delayed implant placement in the anterior sector is more advantageous (Tonetti et al, ), others seem to demonstrate that flap elevation may not be beneficial from the aesthetic point of view (Arora & Ivanovski, ), and a recent systematic review comparing immediate and delayed implants did not find any significant differences in the PES aesthetic evaluation in both groups (Cosyn et al, ).…”

“…The stability of interproximal bone levels was achieved assessing the distance from the implant's platform to the first implant/bone contact point by means of calibrated digital periapical X‐rays and using a dedicated software (Digora ® , Soredex; Gallego et al, ). Soft‐tissue aesthetics were achieved analysing the intraoral pictures taken in the last follow‐up visit according to the Pink Esthetic Score (PES; Arora & Ivanovski, ; Cosyn et al, ; Furhauser et al, ) and using the contralateral tooth as a reference.…”

“…The stability of interproximal bone levels was achieved assessing the distance from the implant's platform to the first implant/bone contact point by means of calibrated digital periapical X-rays and using a dedicated software (Digora ® , Soredex;Gallego et al, 2018). Soft-tissue aesthetics were achieved analysing the intraoral pictures taken in the last follow-up visit according to the Pink Esthetic Score (PES;Arora & Ivanovski, 2018;Cosyn et al, 2011;Furhauser et al, 2005) and using the contralateral tooth as a reference.At last, patient subjective satisfaction was secondarily assessed through a clinical questionnaire consisting of six questions with four options (Bad, Average, Good and Excellent) to analyse aesthetics, comfort, chewing function and global evaluation.The protocol of the retrospective study for this cohort of patients was approved by the Research Ethical Committee of the Principality of Asturias (Spain) (protocol #223/17) and followed the STROBE recommendations. The authors declare no Conflict of Interest.…”