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) 10 (2017), No. 2     29. May 2017
Int J Oral Implantol (Berl) 10 (2017), No. 2  (29.05.2017)

Page 169-178, PubMed:28555207

Molar replacement with 7 mm-wide diameter implants: to place the implant immediately or to wait 4 months after socket preservation? 1 year after loading results from a randomised controlled trial
Tallarico, Marco / Xhanari, Erta / Pisano, Milena / Gatti, Fulvio / Meloni, Silvio Mario
Purpose: To test the hypothesis that there is no difference in clinical, radiographic and aesthetic outcomes positioning single post-extractive 7 mm-diameter implants or waiting 4 months after molar extraction and socket preservation procedure.
Material and Methods: Patients requiring one implant-supported single restoration to replace a failing tooth in the molar region of both maxilla and mandible were selected. Patients were randomised according to a parallel group design into two arms: implant installation in fresh extraction sockets grafted with cortico-cancellous heterologous bone and porcine derma (group A) or delayed implant installation 4 months after tooth extraction and socket preservation using the same materials (group B). Implants were submerged for 4 months. The primary outcome measures were the success rates of the implants and prostheses and the occurrence of any surgical and prosthetic complications during the entire follow-up. Secondary outcome measures were: peri-implant marginal bone level (MBL) changes, resonance frequency analysis (ISQ) and pink esthetic score (PES) values at implant placement (baseline) up to 1 year after loading.
Results: Twelve patients were randomised to group A and 12 to group B. No patient dropped out within 1 year after loading. No implant and prosthesis failed and no complications occurred during the entire follow-up. One year after loading, statistically significant higher mean MBL loss was experienced in group A (0.63 mm ± 0.31 mm) compared to group B (0.23 mm ± 0.06 mm); difference 0.41 mm (95% CI 0.17-0.53; P = 0.001). Six months after implant placement, mean ISQ value was 78.8 ± 2.8 for group A and 79.9 ± 3.6 for group B, showing no statistically significant difference between groups (difference 1.1; 95% CI: 0.04 to 2.96; P = 0.422). One year after loading, mean PES was 10.6 ± 1.8 [range: 8 to13] in group A and 12.2 ± 1.2 [range: 11 to 14] in group B. The difference was statistically significant (1.6 ± 2.7; 95% CI -0.55-2.55; P = 0.019) with better results for group B.
Conclusions: Within the limitations of this study, both procedures achieved successful results over the 1-year follow-up period, but waiting 4 months after tooth extraction and socket preservation procedure was associated with less marginal bone loss and a better aesthetic outcome.

Conflict-of-interest statement: Dr Marco Tallarico is Research Project Manager of Osstem AIC Italy. However no company supported this study and all authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Keywords: delayed implants, dental implants, post-extractive implants, socket preservation, wide-diameter implants