Fate of the buccal bone at implants placed early, delayed, or late after tooth extraction analyzed by cone beam CT: 10‐year results from a randomized, controlled, clinical study

Abstract

Time of placement of single-tooth implants after tooth extraction did not significantly influence the peri-implant buccal bone level, while presence of a buccal bone dehiscence at second stage surgery resulted in significantly more apically located BIC buccally at 10 years.

Effectiveness and clinical performance of early implant placement for the replacement of single teeth in anterior areas: A systematic review

“…Thus, 19 articles were included (Table ) as 36 did not meet the eligibility criteria (Table ). The final sample consisted of: one randomized controlled trial (RCT) reported in seven articles; (Schropp & Isidor, , ; Schropp, Isidor, Kostopoulos, & Wenzel, ; Schropp, Isidor, ; Schropp, Kostopoulos, Wenzel, & Isidor, ; Schropp, Wenzel, Spin‐Neto, & Stavropoulos, ; Schropp, Wenzel, & Stavropoulos, ); two controlled clinical trials reported in three articles (Arora & Ivanovski, ; Gotfredsen, , ); and three case series reported in nine manuscripts (Buser, Chen et al., ; Buser, Bornstein et al., ; Buser et al., , ; Buser, Chappuis, Bornstein et al., ; Buser, Chappuis, Kuchler et al., ; Chappuis, Bornstein, Buser, & Belser, ; Chappuis et al., ; Cosyn, Eghbali, De Bruyn, Dierens, & De Rouck, ; Eghbali et al., ) (Tables and ). In total, these 19 articles provided data from six studies performed by five research groups.…”

“…In total, these 19 articles provided data from six studies performed by five research groups. The multiple reports of the included RCT were considered, by the authors of the present review, as one single study with different follow‐ups and outcomes as throughout the papers the same number of patients with identical characteristics was maintained (Schropp & Isidor, , ; Schropp et al., ; Schropp, Isidor, Kostopoulos et al., ; Schropp, Kostopoulos, Wenzel et al., ; Schropp et al., , ). In two of the papers of this series, an additional third group of 19 patients, treated with Type 4 implants, was also reported (Schropp et al., , ).…”

“…Lastly, a retrospective case series with a follow‐up between 17 and 41 months was also included (Cosyn et al., ; Eghbali et al., ). Some articles also comprised groups with different timing of implant placement, namely Type 1 (Arora & Ivanovski, ; Schropp & Isidor, , ; Schropp et al., , ) and Type 4 (Cosyn et al., ; Eghbali et al., ; Schropp et al., , ).…”

“…However, the authors believe that the risk of bias in this series of reports is considerably high. Firstly, the entire process of randomization and allocation concealment appeared defective as no implants in the anterior areas were allocated to Type 4 implant whereas the other two groups were located only in the anterior areas (Schropp et al., , ). Moreover, surprisingly, the entire sequence of RCTs from the same cohort showed two groups in some manuscripts (Schropp & Isidor, , ; Schropp et al., ; Schropp, Isidor et al., ; Schropp, Kostopoulos et al., ) and three in others (Schropp et al., , ).…”

The Use of Cone‐Beam Computed Tomography in Management of Patients Requiring Dental Implants: An American Academy of Periodontology Best Evidence Review

“…It is known that due to naturally occurring biologic events, the thin facial bone plate is prone to resorption, which can lead to fenestration and dehiscence following tooth extraction. The accuracy of buccal and lingual bone plate thickness measurements prior to implant placement using CBCT images has been demonstrated in several studies 112‐114 …”