RESUMO
Objective @# To investigate the effect of immediate and delayed implant placement on dimensional changes in hard and soft tissues as well as esthetic outcomes. @*Methods @# A total of 40 maxillary single anterior teeth with a dehiscence defect on the labial bone (≤4 mm) were categorized into two groups according to the timing of implant placement: immediate implant placement (n = 20) or delayed implant placement (n = 20). Guided bone regeneration (GBR) was conducted at the sites using a flap approach, and the implants were given immediate provisionalization. Implant survival rates, dimensional changes in hard and soft tissues during the six- and twelve-month follow-ups, and pink esthetic scores (PESs) were measured. @*Results @# The implant survival rates in both groups were 100%, and no complications occurred during the follow-up time. There was no significant difference between the two groups at the measurement sites in the dimensional change of hard and soft tissues during the six- and twelve-month follow-ups. The largest resorption was observed at the implant neck, with a loss of (1.29 ± 0.71) mm in the immediate implant placement group and (1.43 ± 0.19) mm in the delayed implant placement group. The mean PES scores were (10.95 ± 1.51) for the immediate implant placement group and (11.05 ± 1.23) for the delayed implant placement group. @*Conclusion@# Immediate implantation or delayed implantation combined with GBR and immediate provisionalization might both be a prospective treatment strategy for a maxillary single anterior tooth with a dehiscence defect on the labial bone.
RESUMO
@#The method of placing an implant immediately into the fresh extraction socket at the same time as tooth extraction has the advantages of reducing the number of operations and the overall treatment time, making full use of the existing bone mass, and resulting in ideal aesthetic effects. However, immediate implant placement also has its own inherent shortcomings. Due to the existence of the extraction socket, it is difficult to close the wound; because the size of the implant does not match the size of the extraction socket, it is difficult to achieve good initial stability, and there is a risk of soft tissue recession. This article reviews the success rate, indications and expansion of immediate implant placement, surgical requirements, complications and the prevention and treatment of anterior teeth in the aesthetic area. A literature review showed that the 5-year success rate of immediate implant placement was over 95%. The indications included intact socket walls, a facial bone wall at least 1 mm in thickness, the presence of thick, soft tissue, the absence of acute infection at the site, and the availability of bone apically and lingually to the socket to provide primary stability. In addition, in recent years, with the improvement of surgical implantation technology and the improvement of bone substitute material performance, immediate implant placement can be used as one of the conventional methods for oral implantation treatment, and its indications have shown a trend toward expansion. Immediate implant placement also has complications, including poor placement of implants and gingival receding that results in poor aesthetic outcomes. In addition, immediate restoration and conventional loading protocols after immediate implant appear to have similar outcomes and result in better aesthetic effects. However, the long-term stability and patient satisfaction after immediate implant placement in terms of soft tissue aesthetics require more research.