Immediate implant placement utilizing vestibular socket therapy versus early implant placement with contour augmentation for rehabilitation of compromised extraction sockets in the esthetic zone: A randomized controlled clinical trial

Association of Connective Tissue Grafts in Immediate Implants: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The increase in soft tissue (ST) around implants can benefit peri-implant health and aesthetic results. The objective was to compare the gingival and esthetic health benefits of immediate implant placement (IIP) with simultaneous or delayed connective tissue graft (CTG) compared to IIP without CTG.

METHODS

A systematic review was carried out by two reviewers in Medline-Pubmed, Scopus, and Cochrane. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) were considered. Randomized Clinical Trials (RCTs) that were published between April 2017 and February 2024 were used. Studies that analyzed the performance of a simultaneous or deferred CTG after the placement of an implant in the aesthetic zone, with or without immediate provisionalization, without previous regeneration, with a follow-up of 6 months, and that were performed in humans were included.

RESULTS

Quantitative analysis was performed using data provided by the RCTs. The five RCTs that were selected analyzed a total "n" of 245 subjects who met the inclusion criteria and focused on the subject of the study. In the quantitative analysis, four RCTs were included. The studies evaluated buccal gingiva levels when placing the IIP with and without CTG, obtaining a mean buccal gingiva level difference of 0.09 mm (95% CI: -0.54 to 0.72, p = 0.05), statistically not significant, but with a favorable trend.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of CTG associated with the II can maintain the gum level but not increase the volume. CTG is favorable for achieving successful esthetic results when immediate placement of an implant with a provisional prosthesis is planned.

Immediate versus early implant placement for single tooth replacement in the aesthetic area: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To compare immediate implant placement (IIP) with early implant placement (EIP) for single tooth replacement in the aesthetic area in terms of aesthetic, clinical, and patient-reported outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two independent reviewers conducted an electronic literature search in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane databases as well as a manual search to identify eligible clinical studies up to February 2023. Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) comparing IIP with EIP were included for a qualitative and quantitative analysis. The primary outcome was vertical midfacial soft tissue change. Secondary outcomes were horizontal midfacial soft tissue change, vertical papillary change, pink esthetic score (PES), implant survival, buccal bone thickness, marginal bone level change, patient discomfort, chair time, and patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

Out of 1185 records, 6 RCTs were selected, reporting on 222 patients who received 222 single implants (IIP: 112 implants in 112 patients; EIP: 110 implants in 110 patients) in the anterior maxilla or mandible. Patients had a mean age ranging from 35.6 to 52.6 years and were followed between 8 and 24 months. Two RCTs showed some concerns, and four showed a high risk of bias. Four studies could be included in a meta-analysis on the primary outcome and three only considered cases with an intact buccal bone wall. Meta-analysis failed to demonstrate a significant difference in terms of vertical midfacial soft tissue change between IIP and EIP (mean difference: 0.31 mm, 95% CI [-0.23; 0.86], p = .260; I2 = 83%, p < .001). No significant differences were found for PES (standardized mean difference: 0.92, 95% CI [-0.23; 2.07], p = .120; I2 = 89%, p < .001), implant survival (RR: 0.98, 95% CI [0.93, 1.03], p = .480; I2 = 0%, p = .980), and marginal bone level change (mean difference: 0.03 mm, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.17], p = .700; I2 = 0%, p = .470). Insufficient data were available for meta-analyses of other secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSION

In low-risk patients with an intact buccal bone wall, there seems to be no difference between IIP and EIP in terms of aesthetic and clinical outcomes. The strength of this conclusion is rated as low since studies showed an unclear or high risk of bias. In addition, state-of-the-art therapy was only delivered in a minority of studies. Future RCTs should also provide data on patient-reported outcomes since these have been underreported.

The bone shielding versus dual-zone concept in treating thin-walled fresh extraction sockets with immediate implant placement: Soft and hard tissue changes. A randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the ridge alterations and esthetic outcome 1 year after immediate implant placement using the dual-zone (DZ) technique versus the bone shielding concept in patients with intact thin-walled sockets in the esthetic zone.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This randomized clinical trial included 26 patients with nonrestorable maxillary teeth in the esthetic zone who were randomly assigned to two groups (n = 13 each) to receive immediate implants using either the bone shielding concept or DZ. Definitive restorations were delivered after 2 months. Pink esthetic scores (PESs), vertical soft tissue alterations, and bucco-palatal ridge dimensional changes were measured and assessed using intra-oral digital scans at baseline and 1 year post-procedure. Labial bone thickness was measured using cone beam computed tomography scans at baseline and after 1 year.

RESULTS

The bone shielding group provided bucco-palatal ridge thickness stability after 1 year (9.43 mm) compared to baseline values (9.82 mm), while DZ showed a significant loss in the bucco-palatal ridge thickness after 1 year (7.83) compared to baseline values (9.49). No significant difference was reported in the baseline bucco-palatal ridge thickness between the two groups (p = 0.6). After 1 year, the bone shielding group demonstrated 0.38 mm ridge shrinkage which was statistically significant (p = 0.0002) compared to 1.67 mm ridge shrinkage in the DZ group. In addition, the average total PES in the bone shielding group was 12.04 versus 10.28 in the DZ group. No significant difference was reported in the mesial papilla length between the DZ and the bone shielding group after 1 year (p > 0.05). However, the midfacial gingival margin (p = 0.026) and distal papilla were significantly higher in the DZ group (p = 0.0025). There was no significant difference in the mean ± SD mm bone gain at the apical level between the two studied groups after 1 year (p = 0.06) showing 0.85 ± 0.23 and 0.64 ± 0.32 mm, respectively. However, the bone shielding concept showed a statistically significant more bone gain mm (p < 0.001) at the (0.56 ± 0.43) and crestal (0.03 ± 0.8) levels after 1 year compared to DZ which revealed 0.18 ± 0.5 and 0.38 ± 0.29 mm bone loss, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The bone shielding concept might offer a reliable alternative for restoring thin-walled sockets by minimizing postextraction ridge dimensional alterations effect following immediate implant placement in the esthetic zone. Nevertheless, the study suffers from confounding bias since there are two systematic differences between the groups, the barrier membrane type, and the level of bone filling. "This clinical trial was not registered prior to participant recruitment and randomization."

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT05381467.

Effect of three different grafting materials on immediate implant placement using vestibular socket therapy in class II extraction sockets in the maxillary esthetic zone: a randomized controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND

This study compared the effectiveness of three bone grafting materials used for treating class II fresh extraction sockets in the esthetic zone with immediate implant placement using Vestibular Socket Therapy (VST) to evaluate the pink esthetic score (PES), peri-implant mucosal levels (PML), and facial bone thickness (FBT).

METHODS

Twenty-four surgical sites in the maxillary anterior region presented with type II socket defects received immediate implants and simultaneous bone grafting with either a collagen plug soaked in blood, demineralized bone matrix Grafton, or a particulate mixture of 2/3 autogenous bone chips and 1/3 deproteinized bovine bone mineral MinerOss X. The outcome measures were evaluated at 6 and 12 months. The study was registered on www.

CLINICALTRIAL

gov (12/07/2021 - ID: NCT04957654).

RESULTS

Twenty-two cases (91.6%) showed a total PES score of > 10, without a significant difference between all groups. The vertical height soft tissue changes showed significant improvement in the Collagen plug and Grafton groups at 6 and 12 months, while MinerOss X showed no significant difference at 6 and 12 months compared to baseline. Radiographically, FBT was 0.72 ± 0.20, 0.44 ± 0.12, and 0.95 ± 0.37 at baseline, which significantly increased to 1.61 ± 0.88, 1.48 ± 1.20 and 2.31 ± 0.86 at 12 months for all three groups, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The use of a particulate bone graft mixture significantly increases the FBT compared to collagen plugs and DBM-Grafton when performing VST during immediate implant placement in compromised Class II extraction sockets.

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

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the clinical, radiographic, and esthetic outcomes of immediate implant placement with buccal bone dehiscence in the anterior maxilla.

METHODS

In this case series, implants were inserted immediately after tooth extraction in sockets with buccal bone dehiscence. Guided bone regeneration (GBR) with a papilla preservation flap and simultaneous connective tissue grafting (CTG) was used. The following outcome variables were measured: mid-facial mucosal recession, probing depth, bleeding on probing, Pink Esthetic Score (PES), marginal bone loss, and thickness of buccal bone plate (TBP).

RESULTS

12 patients were recruited. Stable mid-facial mucosal level (-0.03 ± 0.17 mm) and excellent soft-tissue esthetic outcomes (PES, 9.17 ± 0.72) were achieved at 1 year. The TBP at platform level was 2.01 ± 0.31 mm at 1-year follow up with a resorption rate of 28.90% ± 15.14%.

CONCLUSIONS

Immediate implant placement using GBR performed with a papilla preservation approach and simultaneous CTG is a feasible treatment procedure in compromised extraction sockets in the anterior region. Favorable esthetic outcomes and buccal bone thickness were obtained. Further studies were needed to evaluate the long-term tissue alteration.