Jumping gap in immediate implant placement in the esthetic zone: A virtual implant planning using cone-beam computed tomography.

PURPOSE: A jumping gap (JG) refers to the implant's future buccal wall; this study aims to estimate the jumping gap dimension in relation to virtual implant placement and subsequently link the implant diameter and implant position with the anatomical site. METHODS: This observational study was conducted to analyze the maxillary teeth in the esthetic zone from cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans using OnDemand software. The horizontal jumping gap dimension of each tooth was assessed by subtracting the calculated virtual implant diameter from the socket dimensions. RESULTS: A total of 253 anterior and premolar maxillary teeth were analyzed from 52 CBCT scans. The estimated JG dimensions were 1.23 ± 0.59 mm, 1.80 ± 0.64 mm, 3.02 ± 0.69 mm, for central incisors, lateral incisors and canines respectively, 3.70 ± 0.68 mm for the first premolars showing the highest horizontal gap and 3.19 ± 0.88 mm for second premolars. The incisors showed the smallest horizontal gap compared to the canines and premolars. CONCLUSIONS: In terms of JG, immediate implant placement is more favorable at the canine and premolar sites. By contrast, the incisors sites should be handled with extreme caution, where the use of narrower implants is advisable when necessary.

Esthetics and bone changes of immediate implants with or without vascularized interpositional periosteal connective tissue grafting: A 2-year randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To compare esthetics at single immediately placed implants with and without soft tissue augmentation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with non-restorable maxillary teeth in the esthetic zone were assigned into 2 groups: immediately placed implants with simultaneous vascularized interpositional periosteal connective tissue grafting (VIP-CTG) or non-grafted immediately placed implants (NG). The outcomes included: pink esthetic score (PES), gingival thickness, keratinized tissue width, buccal bone changes, marginal bone loss, pain, and satisfaction. RESULTS: Eighteen implants were included. At 2 years the mean value for PES was 12 ± 3.2 for the VIP-CTG and 12.9 ± 1.3 for the NG (p = .855). Mucosal thickness and keratinized tissue width showed no statistically significant difference between the two groups (p = .253) and (p = .931) respectively. Clinically buccal bone showed mean bone loss of 2.03 ± 1.57 mm for VIP-CTG and 1.09 ± 1.3 mm for NG (p = .247) and radiographically showed 1.67 ± 0.84 mm at the VIP-CTG and 1.16 ± 0.47 mm at the NG (p = .118). No statistically significant difference between both groups was demonstrated regarding marginal bone level changes (p = .142), pain (p = .622), or satisfaction (p = .562) at any time point. CONCLUSION: Simultaneous soft tissue grafting with immediate implant placement did not provide a more favorable outcome regarding esthetics or alveolar bone preservation effect. Undisturbed healing with the least surgical intervention seems to provide more favorable outcomes.