Himanshu Arora1, Saso Ivanovski2. 1. School of Dentistry and Oral Health, MHIQ, Griffith University, Gold Coast, QLD, Australia. 2. School of Dentistry, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this retrospective study was to investigate the influence of implant placement timing on the esthetic outcomes for single implants in the anterior maxilla. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred and ten patients (48 males; 62 females) who received a single-tooth implant after extraction either immediately (Type 1); after 4-8 weeks (Type 2); after 8-16 weeks (Type 3); or more than 16 weeks (Type 4) were evaluated in terms of esthetic outcomes after a mean post-placement interval of 26.3 months (range 12-116). Esthetic outcomes were measured using the Pink and White Esthetic Score (PES; WES). Stepwise regression analysis was performed to analyze the effect of timing of placement, as well as patient demographics and other clinical parameters on the esthetic outcomes. RESULTS: No statistically significantly differences in PES were found between the various treatment modalities with Type 1 implants (n = 33) scoring 10.58 ± 1.65 (median: 11), followed by 10.36 ± 2.09 (median: 10.5), 9.68 ± 2.43 (median: 10), and 9.63 ± 2.21 (median: 10) for Type 2 (n = 14), Type 3 (n = 19), and Type 4 (n = 44), respectively. For immediate implants, a trend towards better esthetic outcomes was observed when implant placement was done flaplessly in cases with intact buccal bone (Type 1A, median PES 11) as compared to cases with partial/complete missing buccal plates where a flap was raised (Type 1B, median PES 10). Overall, the only parameter that influenced esthetic outcomes (as measured by PES) was gender, with females having significantly superior results. The median WES was 8 and 96% of the crowns were deemed esthetically acceptable, with crowns placed by specialist prosthodontists yielding higher scores than those placed by general practitioners. CONCLUSIONS: Single tooth implants in the anterior maxilla showed satisfactory outcomes when measured with objective esthetic criteria. Timing of implant placement did not significantly influence the esthetic outcomes, although a trend towards better outcomes was seen with immediate implant placement as observed by higher median PES values. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Single tooth implant placement in the anterior maxilla is a predictable treatment modality for achieving acceptable esthetic outcomes regardless of the timing of placement.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this retrospective study was to investigate the influence of implant placement timing on the esthetic outcomes for single implants in the anterior maxilla. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred and ten patients (48 males; 62 females) who received a single-tooth implant after extraction either immediately (Type 1); after 4-8 weeks (Type 2); after 8-16 weeks (Type 3); or more than 16 weeks (Type 4) were evaluated in terms of esthetic outcomes after a mean post-placement interval of 26.3 months (range 12-116). Esthetic outcomes were measured using the Pink and White Esthetic Score (PES; WES). Stepwise regression analysis was performed to analyze the effect of timing of placement, as well as patient demographics and other clinical parameters on the esthetic outcomes. RESULTS: No statistically significantly differences in PES were found between the various treatment modalities with Type 1 implants (n = 33) scoring 10.58 ± 1.65 (median: 11), followed by 10.36 ± 2.09 (median: 10.5), 9.68 ± 2.43 (median: 10), and 9.63 ± 2.21 (median: 10) for Type 2 (n = 14), Type 3 (n = 19), and Type 4 (n = 44), respectively. For immediate implants, a trend towards better esthetic outcomes was observed when implant placement was done flaplessly in cases with intact buccal bone (Type 1A, median PES 11) as compared to cases with partial/complete missing buccal plates where a flap was raised (Type 1B, median PES 10). Overall, the only parameter that influenced esthetic outcomes (as measured by PES) was gender, with females having significantly superior results. The median WES was 8 and 96% of the crowns were deemed esthetically acceptable, with crowns placed by specialist prosthodontists yielding higher scores than those placed by general practitioners. CONCLUSIONS: Single tooth implants in the anterior maxilla showed satisfactory outcomes when measured with objective esthetic criteria. Timing of implant placement did not significantly influence the esthetic outcomes, although a trend towards better outcomes was seen with immediate implant placement as observed by higher median PES values. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Single tooth implant placement in the anterior maxilla is a predictable treatment modality for achieving acceptable esthetic outcomes regardless of the timing of placement.