Immediate versus Delayed Treatment in the Anterior Maxilla Using Single Implants with a Laser‐Microtextured Collar: 3‐Year Results of a Case Series on Hard‐ and Soft‐Tissue Response and Esthetics

Abstract

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.

Influence of Laser‐Microtextured Surface Collar on Marginal Bone Loss and Peri‐Implant Soft Tissue Response: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

“…Review of the titles and abstracts resulted in 22 articles identified as full‐text articles, and seven were excluded for the following reasons: follow‐up <12 months; 44 , 45 redundant studies; 32 LMS design not only in implant neck; 21 , 46 performed with additional surgeries such as hard 47 or soft tissue 48 augmentation. Finally, 15 eligible articles 21‐31,33‐36 were included in this study. The characteristics of the included studies are presented in Table 1.…”

“…Three articles are RCTs 30 , 31 , 33 and six are cohort studies 27‐29,34‐36 . Six case series 21–26 observing implants with LMS collars without controls were also included to evaluate the overall performances of the LMS design. All articles were published from 2009 to 2016.…”

“…All articles were published from 2009 to 2016. Ten studies 21,23‐25,27‐31,33 were identified as prospective studies, and five studies 22,26,34‐36 were retrospectively designed.…”

“…There are four studies 27,28,30,31 with controlled groups providing data with follow‐up periods of 12 months, one study 36 with a follow‐up period of 24 months, three studies 29 , 33 , 34 with follow‐up periods of 36 months, and one study 35 with 5‐year follow‐up. Most of the case series were short‐term, with an observation period of 18 months in one study, 24 24 months in three studies, 21 , 23 , 25 and 36 months in two studies 22 , 26…”

“…This kind of attachment is similar to that of a natural tooth, which is indispensable as a barrier against bacterial infection, 16 helping to stabilize peri‐implant soft tissue and diminish MBL 20 . Several clinical studies have found that LMS collars could improve marginal bone preservation 21–36 and reduce probing depth (PD) 22‐25,28‐36 . However, some scholars 27 , 30 have different opinions, stating that there is no significant difference in MBL around an LMS compared with a roughened‐surface.…”