The efficacy of immediate implant placement in the anterior maxilla with dehiscence in the facial alveolar bone: A case series

Abstract

Background There is no clear evidence that immediate implant placement can be applied to cases with dehiscence in the facial alveolar bone prior to extraction. Purpose To evaluate the results of immediate implant placement in the anterior maxilla with facial alveolar bone dehiscence. Materials and Methods We super positioned pre‐ and post‐operative cone‐beam computed tomography (CBCT) three‐dimensional reconstruction images. A CBCT was taken before tooth extraction (T0), when the definitive restoration was placed (T1), and 1 year after placing the definitive restoration (T2). The depth and width of the dehiscence at T0, and the height and width of the facial hard and soft tissues are measured at the implant site at T1 and T2. We calculated the change in the amount of hard and soft tissues from T1 to T2 and determined the correlation between preoperative facial alveolar bone morphology and postoperative gingival recession. Results 13 women and 7 men were recruited. A total of 20 implants were evaluated. The implant survival rate was 100%. The mean facial alveolar bone dehiscence width was 3.9 ± 1.6 mm, and the mean depth from platform level was 2.9 ± 1.7 mm. The mean implant body exposure on the buccal was 4.8 ± 1.7 mm, and the mean socket width gap was 2.1 ± 0.8 mm. At T1, the mean facial hard tissue width was 2.1 ± 0.7 mm, and the mean height was 2.0 ± 0.7 mm. The mean change in vertical gingival recession from T1 to T2 was 0.5 ± 0.5 mm. We found a positive correlation between facial alveolar bone dehiscence width and gingival recession (r = 0.46, p‐value = 0.04) and between dehiscence depth and gingival recession (r = 0.48, p‐value = 0.03). Conclusions The results of our CBCT superposition method indicated that immediate implant placement can be considered in patients with facial alveolar bone dehiscence. However, there may be a higher risk of gingival recession with wide or deep dehiscence.

Clinical, radiographic, and esthetic evaluation of immediate implant placement with buccal bone dehiscence in the anterior maxilla: A 1‐year prospective case series

“…In this study, the mid‐facial recession of implants at 1‐year was minimal (−0.03 ± 0.17 mm). This result was smaller compared to previous studies, where GBR using a flap‐involving approach was applied 10,11 . Mizuno and co‐workers reported that the mean change in vertical gingival recession measured on CBCT cross‐sections was 0.5 ± 0.5 mm.…”

“…This result was smaller compared to previous studies, where GBR using a flap-involving approach was applied. 10,11 Mizuno and co-workers reported that the mean change in vertical gingival recession measured on CBCT cross-sections was 0.5 ± 0.5 mm. Another study by Liu and colleagues.…”

“…[6][7][8][9] While the others reported a compromised gingival level with a mean mid-facial recession of around 0.5 mm after 1-year follow-up. [10][11][12] Currently, no decisive data were available concerning the mid-facial soft tissue recession of immediate implant placement in compromised extraction sockets. Therefore, we investigated the mid-facial soft tissue recession of immediate implant placement in compromised sockets by means of a systematic appraisal and meta-analysis.…”

“…Indeed, a small number of recent studies showed favorable implant survival and esthetic outcomes 6–9 . While the others reported a compromised gingival level with a mean mid‐facial recession of around 0.5 mm after 1‐year follow‐up 10–12 . Currently, no decisive data were available concerning the mid‐facial soft tissue recession of immediate implant placement in compromised extraction sockets.…”

Case report and literature review: autonomous robotic system assisted palatal implantation at an anterior teeth site compromised by periapical cyst

“…According to previous literature, the causes of soft tissue retraction in this case can be attributed to the following: Firstly, the labial alveolar bone of the afflicted tooth exhibits a UU type bone defect. The research of Mizuno K established a notable positive correlation between alveolar bone defect severity and gingival recession ( 20 ). Additionally, the utilization of periodontal probes revealed the gums of patient to be of a thin gingival biotype ( 21 ), a significant risk factor for post-implant surgery gingival recession ( 22 ).…”