Aesthetics outcome of immediately restored single implants placed in extraction sockets in the anterior maxilla: A case series study

Abstract

Background . Immediate single implant placement and restoration (IIR) is recognized as a novel method and is the main request of many patients. This study was designed to evaluate the aesthetic outcomes of immediately restored single implants placed in extraction sockets in theanterior maxilla. Methods. In this case series study, 18 patients were selected from two private clinics after placing a single-tooth implant in the anterior maxilla. Immediate provisional crowns were delivered on the following day or at most 48 hours later, and guidelines were provided. The Pink Esthetic Score (PES) questionnaire was used at 6- and 12-month follow-ups to assess aesthetic outcomes. Data were analyzed with single t-test and dependent t-test. Results. In general, the results showed that the status of the mesial papilla, distal papilla, curve of the facial soft tissue line, level of the facial peri-implant mucosa and root convexity soft tissue in IIR method were optimal (P<0.05), with total PES means of 9.44±0.783 and 8.58±1.003 after 6 and 12 months, respectively. Also, the results showed a significant difference in PES between the 6-month and 12-month intervals (P<0.05). Conclusion. IIR is a viable method that resulted in optimal aesthetic outcomes based on PES in the short term. Considering its confirmation in this study and previous studies, it is recommended that dentists apply this method.

Selection criteria for immediate implant placement and immediate loading for single tooth replacement in the maxillary esthetic zone: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

“…Gingival recession was reported as an exclusion criterion for Type 1A implant treatment protocol in 22 studies (Bittner et al, 2020; Block et al, 2009; Bruno et al, 2014; Cabello et al, 2013; Canullo et al, 2010; Cardaropoli et al, 2015, 2019; Cosyn et al, 2011, 2016; Cristalli et al, 2015; Di Alberti et al, 2012; Groisman et al, 2003; Kan et al, 2011; Khzam et al, 2014; Mangano et al, 2013; Migliorati et al, 2015; Raes, Eghbali, et al, 2018; Ross et al, 2014; Saedi Germi et al, 2020; Seyssens et al, 2020; Tarnow et al, 2014; Vidigal Jr. et al, 2017). Only two studies (Noelken, Moergel, Pausch, et al, 2018; Shanelec, 2005) reported that preoperative labial tissue deficiencies were present, and for which sub‐epithelial connective tissue grafting was performed in some of them.…”

“…The size of the gaps varied between 1 and 4 mm, with most studies reporting placing biomaterial into the gap. Biomaterials utilized for socket grafting in conjunction with Type 1A protocols included deproteinized bovine bone mineral xenograft (22 studies—Arora & Ivanovski, 2018a; Arora & Ivanovski, 2018b; Bittner et al, 2020; Bonnet et al, 2018; Bruno et al, 2014; Canullo, Goglia, et al, 2009; Canullo & Rasperini, 2007; Cardaropoli et al, 2015; Cardaropoli et al, 2019; Cosyn et al, 2011; Cosyn et al, 2016; Cristalli et al, 2015; Degidi et al, 2013; Grandi et al, 2013; Grandi, Garuti, Samarani, et al, 2012; Groenendijk et al, 2017; Groenendijk et al, 2021; Khzam et al, 2014; Migliorati et al, 2015; Paul & Held, 2013; Seyssens et al, 2020; Valentini et al, 2010; Vidigal Jr. et al, 2017), autogenous bone (11 studies—Berberi, Noujeim, et al, 2014; Berberi, Sabbagh, et al, 2014; Ferrara et al, 2006; Ganeles et al, 2017; Groisman et al, 2003; Kan et al, 2011; Malchiodi et al, 2013; Mijiritsky et al, 2021; Noelken et al, 2011; Noelken, Moergel, Pausch, et al, 2018; Rosa et al, 2014), autogenous bone and xenograft mixture (six studies—Norton, 2011; Pieri et al, 2011; Shanelec, 2005; Slagter et al, 2021; Van Nimwegen et al, 2016; Zuiderveld et al, 2018), human allograft (six studies—Block et al, 2009; Bushahri et al, 2021; Kolerman, Nissan, Rahmanov, et al, 2016; Ross et al, 2014; Saedi Germi et al, 2020; Tarnow et al, 2014), alloplastic graft materials (three studies—Canullo et al, 2010; Lombardo et al, 2016; Mangano et al, 2012), and alloplastic/allograftor/...…”

“…The implant insertion torque value was the most commonly reported criteria for evaluation of primary implant stability in 42 of the included studies (Aguilar‐Salvatierra et al, 2016; Arora & Ivanovski, 2018a, 2018b; Berberi, Noujeim, et al, 2014; Berberi, Sabbagh, et al, 2014; Bittner et al, 2020; Bonnet et al, 2018; Bruno et al, 2014; Bushahri et al, 2021; Canullo et al, 2010; Canullo, Goglia, et al, 2009; Canullo & Rasperini, 2007; Cardaropoli et al, 2015, 2019; Cosyn et al, 2011, 2016; Crespi et al, 2008; Cristalli et al, 2015; Degidi et al, 2013, 2014; Di Alberti et al, 2012; Ganeles et al, 2017; Grandi et al, 2013; Grandi, Garuti, Samarani, et al, 2012; Groenendijk et al, 2017; Hartlev et al, 2013; Khzam et al, 2014; Kolerman, Nissan, Rahmanov, et al, 2016; McAllister et al, 2012; Mijiritsky et al, 2021; Norton, 2011; Pieri et al, 2011; Raes, Eghbali, et al, 2018; Rosa et al, 2014; Ross et al, 2014; Saedi Germi et al, 2020; Seyssens et al, 2020; Spinato et al, 2012; Tarnow et al, 2014; Valentini et al, 2010; Van Nimwegen et al, 2016; Vidigal Jr. et al, 2017; Yang et al, 2019; Zuiderveld et al, 2018). A minimum insertion torque threshold of 30–45 Ncm was used for immediate loading in 34 studies (Aguilar‐Salvatierra et al, 2016; Arora & Ivanovski, 2018a, 2018b; Berberi, Noujeim, et al, 2014; Berberi, Sabbagh, et al, 2014; Bonnet et al, 2018; Bruno et al, 2014; Bushahri et al, 2021; Canullo et al,…”

“…The medical status of the patient as an inclusion or exclusion criterion for Type 1A protocols was reported in 63 of the included articles. Forty‐one studies (Berberi, Noujeim, et al, 2014; Berberi, Sabbagh, et al, 2014; Bittner et al, 2020; Block et al, 2009; Bonnet et al, 2018; Bushahri et al, 2021; Canullo et al, 2010; Canullo, Goglia, et al, 2009; Cardaropoli et al, 2019; Cooper et al, 2014; Cosyn et al, 2011, 2016; Crespi et al, 2008; Ferrara et al, 2006; Grandi, Garuti, Samarani, et al, 2012; Groenendijk et al, 2017; Kan et al, 2011; Khzam et al, 2014; Lombardo et al, 2016; Ma et al, 2019; Mangano et al, 2013; McAllister et al, 2012; Menchini‐Fabris et al, 2019; Migliorati et al, 2015; Mijiritsky et al, 2021; Noelken et al, 2011; Raes et al, 2017; Raes, Eghbali, et al, 2018; Ribeiro et al, 2008; Rosa et al, 2014; Saedi Germi et al, 2020; Sato et al, 2017; Seyssens et al, 2020; Spinato et al, 2012; Tarnow et al, 2014; Tortamano et al, 2010; Valentini et al, 2010; Van Nimwegen et al, 2016; Vidigal Jr. et al, 2017; Yang et al, 2019; Zuiderveld et al, 2018) included only healthy patients with no medical conditions and excluded patients with any smoking degree. All studies excluded heavy smokers (>10–15 cigarettes/day).…”

“…;Malchiodi et al, 2013;Mangano et al, 2012Mangano et al, , 2013Raes, Eghbali, et al, 2018;Saedi Germi et al, 2020;Spinato et al, 2012) sites with thin gingival phenotype. A minimum height of keratinized tissues ranging from TA B L E 5 Included study characteristics.Study Type…”