PURPOSE: To compare peri-implant marginal bone loss, soft tissue response, and esthetics following single immediate implant treatment (IIT) and delayed implant treatment (DIT) in the esthetic zone of the maxilla in well-selected patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adequate bone volume and ideal soft tissue level/contour were considered requirements for implant therapy, with additional prerequisites for IIT of residual alveolar bone wall integrity and a thick gingival biotype. IIT included immediate placement and provisionalization, while DIT included extraction socket preservation followed by implant placement and provisionalization 4 months later. Cortical bone levels and peri-implant mucosal conditions were evaluated at regular intervals. The esthetic outcome was objectively rated after 3 years using the pink esthetic score (PES) and white esthetic score (WES). RESULTS: Twelve patients received an immediate Laser-Lok® implant, and 13 patients received a delayed Laser-Lok® implant. No significant differences were found between the study groups regarding survival rate (100%). The mean bone level from the implant/abutment interface was 0.35 ± 0.18 mm for IIT and 0.42 ± 0.21 mm for DIT after 3 years (p > 0.05). Mesial and distal papillae remained stable over time in DIT. A tendency for regrowth of mesial and distal papillae was found following IIT (p < 0.05). Midfacial soft tissues remained stable over time following DIT and IIT. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this study (e.g., small sample size, short follow-up duration), the results suggest that regarding success rate, hard/soft tissue responses, and esthetics, DIT and IIT with single Laser-Lok® implants in the anterior maxilla are comparable and predictable options for well-selected patients.
PURPOSE: To compare peri-implant marginal bone loss, soft tissue response, and esthetics following single immediate implant treatment (IIT) and delayed implant treatment (DIT) in the esthetic zone of the maxilla in well-selected patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adequate bone volume and ideal soft tissue level/contour were considered requirements for implant therapy, with additional prerequisites for IIT of residual alveolar bone wall integrity and a thick gingival biotype. IIT included immediate placement and provisionalization, while DIT included extraction socket preservation followed by implant placement and provisionalization 4 months later. Cortical bone levels and peri-implant mucosal conditions were evaluated at regular intervals. The esthetic outcome was objectively rated after 3 years using the pink esthetic score (PES) and white esthetic score (WES). RESULTS: Twelve patients received an immediate Laser-Lok® implant, and 13 patients received a delayed Laser-Lok® implant. No significant differences were found between the study groups regarding survival rate (100%). The mean bone level from the implant/abutment interface was 0.35 ± 0.18 mm for IIT and 0.42 ± 0.21 mm for DIT after 3 years (p > 0.05). Mesial and distal papillae remained stable over time in DIT. A tendency for regrowth of mesial and distal papillae was found following IIT (p < 0.05). Midfacial soft tissues remained stable over time following DIT and IIT. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this study (e.g., small sample size, short follow-up duration), the results suggest that regarding success rate, hard/soft tissue responses, and esthetics, DIT and IIT with single Laser-Lok® implants in the anterior maxilla are comparable and predictable options for well-selected patients.
Authors: Giovanni Battista Menchini-Fabris; Paolo Toti; Giovanni Crespi; Ugo Covani; Luca Furlotti; Roberto Crespi Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-09-17 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Stefan P Bienz; Miha Pirc; Spyridon N Papageorgiou; Ronald E Jung; Daniel S Thoma Journal: Clin Oral Implants Res Date: 2022-06 Impact factor: 5.021