Immediate versus delayed implant placement after anterior single tooth extraction: the timing randomized controlled clinical trial

Abstract

Aim: To compare need for bone augmentation, surgical complications, periodontal, radiographic, aesthetic and patient reported outcomes in subjects receiving implant placement at the time of extraction (Immediate Implant) or 12 weeks thereafter. Methods: Subjects requiring single tooth extraction in the anterior and premolar areas were recruited in seven private practices. Implant position and choice of platform were restoratively driven. Measurements were performed by calibrated and masked examiners. Results: IMI was unfeasible in 7.5% of cases. One hundred and 24 subjects were randomized. One implant was lost in the IMI group. IMI required bone augmentation in 72% of cases compared with 43.9% for delayed (p = 0.01), while wound failure occurred in 26.1% and 5.3% of cases, respectively (p = 0.02). At 1 year, IMI had deeper probing depths (4.1 AE 1.2 mm versus 3.3 AE 1.1 mm, p < 0.01). A trend for greater radiographic bone loss was observed at IMI over the initial 3-year period (p-trend < 0.01). Inadequate pink aesthetic scores were obtained in 19% of delayed and in 42% of IMI implant cases (p = 0.03). No differences in patient reported outcomes were observed.

The influence of different soft‐tissue grafting procedures at single implant placement on esthetics: A randomized controlled trial

“…The observed recession of the mid‐buccal mucosa in all groups in this study was minor and within clinically acceptable levels . Changes in MBML in the NG group and CTG group were in line with recent literature . Comparing the application of a CTG to no soft‐tissue graft, we observed no difference for change in MBML, which is in line with a recent study .…”

A long‐term prospective cohort study on immediately restored single tooth implants inserted in extraction sockets and healed ridges: CBCT analyses, soft tissue alterations, aesthetic ratings, and patient‐reported outcomes

“…[12][13][14] Possible explanations may be a stringent selection ridges, yet only short-term data were published. [12][13][14] Possible explanations may be a stringent selection ridges, yet only short-term data were published.…”

“…Low risk for midfacial recession has also been reported for ridge preservation and single implant treatment in a delayed approach. 14 To the best of our knowledge long-term prospective studies with data on midfacial alterations, aesthetics, and patient-reported outcomes have not been published for delayed implant placement (type IV). 11,12 In addition, Benic et al (2012) demonstrated an incomplete buccal bone wall in 5/14 patients who had been treated with an immediate implant 7 years earlier.…”

Effect of connective tissue grafting on peri‐implant tissue in single immediate implant sites: A RCT

“…Recession and less favourable pink aesthetics of the mid‐buccal mucosa when applying immediate implant placement are not uncommon (Chen & Buser, ; Cosyn et al., ; Tonetti et al., ). As demonstrated in animal studies, tooth extraction results in loss of bone and soft tissue, especially at the buccal side.…”