We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
International Journal of Oral Implantology



Forgotten password?


Int J Oral Implantol (Berl) 6 (2013), No. 3     18. Oct. 2013
Int J Oral Implantol (Berl) 6 (2013), No. 3  (18.10.2013)

Page 285-295, PubMed:24179982

Immediate provisionalisation of single post-extractive implants versus implants placed in healed sites in the anterior maxilla: 1-year results from a multicentre controlled cohort study
Grandi, Tommaso / Guazzi, Paolo / Samarani, Rawad / Grandi, Giovanni
Purpose: The purpose of the study was to compare the clinical and aesthetic outcome of single postextractive implants versus implants placed in a preserved socket after 4 months of healing in the anterior maxilla. All of the implants were immediately non-occlusally loaded.
Materials and methods: A total of 50 patients were treated in the two groups of study. The Delayed Group had a maxillary tooth (premolar, canine, lateral or central incisor) removed, with immediate socket grafting, followed by implant placement and provisionalisation 4 months later. The Immediate Group had immediate implant placement and provisionalisation. Outcome measures were implant failures, biological and biomechanical complications, peri-implant radiographic bone level changes, and gingival aesthetics.
Results: At the 12-month follow-up, two implants failed in the Immediate Group (8%) versus one in the Delayed Group (4%), with a comparable rate of implant failure (P = 0.55). No complications occurred for either group. The 12-month peri-implant bone resorption was similar in both groups (P = 0.23): 0.71 mm (95% CI 0.45, 0.97) in the Immediate Group versus 0.60 mm (95% CI 0.38, 0.82) in the Delayed Group. The mean difference in bone resorption was 0.13 mm (95% CI -0.21, 0.47). An ideal gingival marginal level was reached most frequently in the Delayed Group (83.3% versus 52.1%, P = 0.04). Rates of full closure of the papilla were similar between the two groups (82.6% for the Immediate Group versus 62.5% for the Delayed Group, P = 0.12).
Conclusions: Given the limitation that this was not a randomised controlled trial, there were no differences in complications or crestal bone response at immediate post-extractive implants when compared to delayed implants. A delayed protocol might be considered in the aesthetic zone due to the gingival recession that occurs after post-extractive implant placement.

Keywords: delayed implants, immediate loading, post-extractive, single-tooth replacement