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

Immediate implant placement in compromised extraction sockets using vestibular socket therapy with acellular dermal matrix versus connective tissue grafts in the esthetic zone: a randomized controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Immediate implant placement (IIP) in compromised extraction sockets poses significant challenges in maintaining the contour and level of mucosal tissues. This study compares the efficacy of vestibular socket therapy (VST) combined with acellular dermal matrix (ADM) versus connective tissue grafts (CTG) in IIP within the esthetic zone.

METHODS

Twenty participants requiring extraction in the maxillary esthetic zone were randomized into two groups: ADM and CTG (n = 10 each). Both groups underwent VST with bone grafting and dental implant placement. Clinical outcomes were evaluated at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months, measuring soft-tissue level and thicknesses, and the radiographic facial alveolar bone thicknesses and height.

RESULTS

Both groups resulted in statistically significant increase in coronal mucosal thickness, facial bone height and thickness over time. CTG showed statistically significant increase at apical mucosal thickness over time, whereas the ADM group had a significantly higher facial bone height after 12 months. No significant differences were observed between groups in mucosal thickness and level at any time point and both groups achieved 100% implant survival.

CONCLUSION

ADM and CTG are both effective for soft tissue augmentation and hard-tissue maintenance in IIP within compromised extraction sockets after 12 months. CTG may offer advantages in apical mucosal thickness, while ADM was associated with greater bone height.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Both ADM and CTG effectively enhance soft tissue and maintain hard-tissue levels, with CTG providing better apical mucosal thickness and ADM resulting in greater facial bone height after 12 months. These insights help clinicians to customize treatment plans based on individual goals and patient needs.

Bone graft substitutes and dental implant stability in immediate implant surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Implant dentistry is currently being revolutionized by breakthroughs in techniques, technology, and material, there are few systematic reviews and meta-analyses that examine the effects of utilizing different bone graft substitutes in immediate implant placement surgeries.

AIM

The purpose of this research is to systematically review and meta-analyze the effect that different bone graft substitutes have on implant stability when concurrently utilized in patients undergoing immediate implant surgeries.

METHODOLOGY

The PICO criteria were used to construct the focused question, and the systematic review has been outlined as per the PRISMA guidelines. The revised Cochrane risk-of-bias method for randomized trials was used to assess the risk of bias for the selected articles. To derive estimates for the results, random effects meta-analysis was conducted on the selected articles.

RESULTS

The electronic databases were searched and a total of 1583 articles were identified. After title and abstract screening and due to problems in retrieval a further 1358 articles were eliminated. Fifteen articles were finally chosen to be qualified for review. Of which full text evaluation of 5 articles were found to meet the eligibility criteria and were therefore included in the systematic review.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review and meta-analysis on the stability of dental implants and bone graft substitutes in immediate implant surgery, was unable to draw any conclusions and established no statistically significant correlation between the different types of grafts used and implant stability.

Horizontal Bone Augmentation with Simultaneous Implant Placement in the Aesthetic Region: A Case Report and Review of the Current Evidence

This study aimed to describe a case of simultaneous guided bone regeneration (GBR) and implant placement in a patient with prior aesthetic implant failure, focusing on achieving optimal aesthetic and functional outcomes, and to perform a literature review of the current evidence. A 38-year-old male presented with an improperly positioned implant at the level of the right upper central (tooth 2.1), leading to aesthetic and functional issues. The initial assessment included a panoramic radiograph revealing marginal bone loss and an enlarged peri-implant space, necessitating implant removal. Following implant removal and provisional restoration, the patient was re-evaluated for subsequent therapeutic treatments. The patient underwent orthodontic treatment to improve mesio-distal spacing, followed by surgical intervention involving GBR and simultaneous implant placement. The GBR procedure utilised bone substitutes and resorbable membranes, with soft tissue augmentation conducted subsequently. The surgical intervention involved local anaesthesia, flap design, defect assessment, and palatally oriented implant placement. GBR was then performed. After six months, implant uncovering and soft tissue augmentation were conducted. The implant was loaded with a screwed restoration following complete hard and soft tissue healing. The patient was monitored every six months for two years, then annually. At the 10-year follow-up, no signs of bone resorption or soft tissue inflammation were observed. This case demonstrated that GBR and simultaneous implant placement, with the application of advanced biomaterials, effectively promoted osseointegration and maintained aesthetic and functional stability over a decade.

Soft and hard tissue evaluation for vestibular socket therapy of immediately placed implants in infected and non-infected sockets: a 1-year prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Immediate implant placement using vestibular socket therapy (VST) proved to offer a successful treatment option in compromised sockets. However, the presence of active signs infection complicates immediate implants in sockets with defective labial plates, due to the possible contamination of the implant or the bone graft with existing infected tissues or oral environment via the fistula. This study, therefore, aims to explore the success of immediate implant placement using VST in managing infected compromised sockets.

METHODS

We included 26 age- and sex-matched patients with 41 implants sites. Thirteen patients had 19 infected (group I) and 13 had 21 non-infected type 2 sockets (group N). Both groups were treated using vestibular socket therapy (VST) and a 6-day protocol. Implant survival, changes in facial bone thickness, and mid, mesial, and distal mucosal levels were evaluated 1 year after implant placement. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare both groups. Furthermore, the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to study changes with time within each group. The statistical significance level was set at P < 0.05.

RESULTS

All implants survived; no significant difference was found between groups N and I regarding apical, mid, and crestal bone thickness and soft tissue level, except at the mesial papilla, where the recession was significantly more in group N than in group I. Changes over time were statistically significant in the apical, mid, and crestal bone thickness in both groups. The mean bone thickness gain ranged from 0.85 to 2.4 mm and 0.26-1.63 mm in groups I and N, respectively. Additionally, the mean mucosal recession ranged from 0.29 to 0.51 mm and 0.39-1.47 mm in groups I and N, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Within the limitations of this study immediate implant placement in type II infected sockets using the 6-day protocol and VST achieved 100% implant survival, while maintaining the regenerated facial bone thickness with minimal mucosal recession.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The protocol for this study was registered on clinicaltrials.gov at 3/10/2021 (registration number NCT04787224).

Immediate implant placement in extraction sockets with buccal bone dehiscence: A case study

BACKGROUND

Immediate implant placement (IIP) has been associated with a higher risk of esthetic complications and particularly buccal mucosal recession, which can be more pronounced in non-intact sockets or in the presence of thin phenotype in the esthetic zone. Nevertheless, multiple techniques have been published to address IIP in non-intact alveolar sockets with favorable outcomes. The purpose of this study is to present an approach on IIP in sites with buccal bone dehiscence.

METHODS

Three patients requiring extraction of one or multiple teeth in the presence of buccal bone dehiscence were treated with flapless extractions, IIP, guided bone regeneration (GBR), and connective tissue grafting (CTG) through a tunneling approach with a simultaneous use of custom healing abutments.

RESULTS

All sites exhibited 1-2 mm of buccal bone thickness at the level of the implant platform, as well as significant buccal soft tissue thickness with no recession and a favorable development of the emergence profile at 4 months to a year post implant placement.

CONCLUSIONS

IIP in sockets with buccal bone dehiscence can be managed by means of a flapless extraction, GBR and CTG through a tunneling approach exhibiting favorable hard and soft tissue responses.

KEY POINTS

When placing immediate implants in non-intact sockets, simultaneous connective tissue grafting is recommended, especially in the esthetic zone. Bone grafting in immediate implants in sockets with buccal bone dehiscence can be performed through a tunneling approach without the need for open flap approaches. Placement of CHAs over immediate implants may help promote maintenance of the buccolingual ridge contours and overall hard and soft tissue responses.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

Placing dental implants right after tooth extraction can lead to more visible aesthetic issues, especially gum recession. This is more common when the tooth socket is not intact or the gum tissue is thin. However, several techniques have shown good results even in these challenging situations. This study explores a method for implant placement right after tooth extraction in cases where there is bone missing on the socket. Three patients who needed teeth extracted and had bone loss on the outer side of their tooth sockets were treated. The treatment included: Extracting the teeth without cutting the gums, placing implants immediately, using GBR to help regrow bone, adding connective tissue grafts, and using custom healing cups to shape the gum tissue. After treatment, all the sites showed 1-2 mm of new bone on the outer side of the implants and thicker gum tissue without any recession. The gum and bone around the implants looked good 4 months to a year later. In conclusion, IIP in sockets with bone loss on the outer side can be effectively managed with this method, leading to good bone and gum tissue outcomes.

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.