Immediate Implant Placement and Loading of Single Implants in the Esthetic Zone: Clinical Outcome and Esthetic Evaluation in a Japanese Population

Abstract

This study evaluated the clinical outcomes of immediately loaded maxillary anterior single implants placed in fresh extraction sockets. A patient cohort that was treated 1.5 years earlier was recalled, and 18 patients (6 men, 12 women) with 21 implants were included. Clinical photographs and periapical radiographs were taken at follow-up and baseline to determine the bone loss and change in esthetics. No marginal bone loss was detected at followup (mean bone level ± standard deviation = 0.32 ± 0.82 mm). Immediate implant placement and loading resulted in predictable clinical and esthetic outcomes, with soft and hard tissue levels remaining stable over time. (Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2015;35:715-723.

Immediate loading vs. early/conventional loading of immediately placed implants in partially edentulous patients from the patients’ perspective: A systematic review

“…The remainder of the included studies (six studies) did not provide an adequate comparison group comprising of Type1 implant placement and conventional loading. Four of those were single‐arm studies with Type 1 implant placement and immediate temporization (De Rouck, Collys, & Cosyn, , ; Ferrara et al., ; Kolinski et al., ; Takeshita et al., ). Two studies by Raes, Cooper, Tarrida, Vandromme, and De Bruyn (), Raes, Cosyn, and De Bruyn () were multiarms studies and only data from one arm consisting Type 1 implant placement and immediate temporization was extracted for the purpose of the present systematic review.…”

“…The PROMs reported included the use of visual analogue scale to determine patient satisfaction with regards to a esthetics (De Rouck et al., , , ; Kolinski et al., ), function, speech, sense of implant feeling like one's own and self‐esteem (Kolinski et al., ). Other PROMs included the use of a 5‐point categorical scale to evaluate function and a esthetic (Felice et al., , ), a 10‐point categorical scale to evaluate patient satisfaction (Ferrara et al., ), the use of close‐ended questions (Felice et al., ,) and the use of Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) questionnaires consisting of 14 questions (Raes et al., , ) or 54 questions specific for a Japanese population (Takeshita et al., ).…”

“…Three studies evaluated PROMs prior to and after treatment (Kolinski et al., ; Raes et al., , ) while the remainder of the included studies only evaluated PROMs after treatment (De Rouck et al., ,, ; Felice et al., , ; Ferrara et al., ; Takeshita et al., ). When evaluated after treatment, the timeline to report the PROMs varied between 4 months after implant placement (Felice et al., ) to 4 years after final crown delivery (Ferrara et al., ).…”

“…In a retrospective study, Takeshita et al. () used a modified OHIP questionnaire specifically adapted to Japanese populations with 54 questions (Yamazaki, Inukai, Baba, & John, ) to report on patient satisfaction. The authors converted the overall OHIP‐J scores recorded into percentage of satisfaction.…”

“…(, ) had to be viewed as nonrandomized for the purpose of this review. The remaining studies only included the test intervention of interest as the sole treatment investigated (De Rouck et al., ,; Ferrara et al., ; Kolinski et al., ; Takeshita et al., ) or as part of a multiarm trial in which the other treatment arms were outside the scope of the present work (Raes et al., , ). Therefore, the majority of the included studies (six of nine) were single cohort uncontrolled studies.…”