Immediate versus delayed single-tooth implant placement in bony defect sockets in the aesthetic zone: Is an intact buccal wall necessary?

IF 2.3 Q3 Dentistry
Evidence-based dentistry Pub Date : 2025-06-01 Epub Date: 2025-05-13 DOI:10.1038/s41432-025-01152-5
Mohammad Zakaria Nassani
{"title":"Immediate versus delayed single-tooth implant placement in bony defect sockets in the aesthetic zone: Is an intact buccal wall necessary?","authors":"Mohammad Zakaria Nassani","doi":"10.1038/s41432-025-01152-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>A commentary on: </strong>Meijer H J A, Slagter K W, Gareb B, Hentenaar D F M, Vissink A, Raghoebar G M. Immediate single-tooth implant placement in bony defect sites: a 10-year randomized controlled trial. J Periodontol 2025; 96: 151-163.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>This single-center, 10-year randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted at the University Medical Center Groningen (UMCG), the Netherlands, to compare immediate and delayed implant placement in patients with a failing tooth in the aesthetic region and a buccal bony defect of ≥5 mm. Forty patients were randomly assigned to either the Immediate Group (immediate implant placement with bone grafting and delayed provisionalization) or the Delayed Group (ridge preservation followed by delayed implant placement and provisionalization). Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) was used preoperatively to assess palatal bone availability. Surgical procedures were standardized and performed by a single experienced oral and maxillofacial surgeon, while prosthetic procedures were completed by a single prosthodontist. Patients were followed up for 10 years to assess marginal bone levels (MBL), buccal bone thickness (BBT), soft tissue changes, aesthetic outcomes, patient satisfaction, and biological and technical complications.</p><p><strong>Case selection: </strong>Patients with a compromised tooth in the maxillary aesthetic zone and a buccal bone defect of ≥5 mm following extraction were included. Patients were excluded if they met any of the following criteria: poor oral hygiene, inadequate mesio-distal space for implant placement, presence of periodontal disease, smoking, an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score of ≥II, or a vertical bony defect of less than 5 mm in the labial socket wall after tooth extraction.</p><p><strong>Data analysis: </strong>The primary outcome, change in marginal bone level, was analyzed using a per-protocol strategy. Normally distributed data were summarized using means and confidence intervals and compared with the independent samples t-test, while non-normally distributed data were described using medians and interquartile ranges and compared using the Mann-Whitney U test. To check the robustness of the findings, sensitivity analyses were conducted, including an intention-to-treat analysis. For outcomes with repeated measurements, multivariable linear mixed-effect models were utilized to examine differences between the treatment groups over time. All statistical analyses were performed using the R software (version 4.0.5), and a p-value less than 0.05 was the criterion for statistical significance.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After 10 years, the mean marginal bone level change was -0.71 ± 0.59 mm in the Immediate Group and -0.36 ± 0.39 mm in the Delayed Group, with no statistically significant difference between them (p = 0.063). Secondary outcomes showed no significant variations between the two groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Immediate implant placement with bone augmentation in postextraction sockets with buccal bony defects ≥5 mm yielded similar long-term outcomes to delayed implant placement after ridge preservation in the aesthetic zone, with no significant differences in bone stability, clinical performance, aesthetics, or patient satisfaction over 10 years.</p>","PeriodicalId":12234,"journal":{"name":"Evidence-based dentistry","volume":" ","pages":"80-82"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence-based dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41432-025-01152-5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/5/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A commentary on: Meijer H J A, Slagter K W, Gareb B, Hentenaar D F M, Vissink A, Raghoebar G M. Immediate single-tooth implant placement in bony defect sites: a 10-year randomized controlled trial. J Periodontol 2025; 96: 151-163.

Design: This single-center, 10-year randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted at the University Medical Center Groningen (UMCG), the Netherlands, to compare immediate and delayed implant placement in patients with a failing tooth in the aesthetic region and a buccal bony defect of ≥5 mm. Forty patients were randomly assigned to either the Immediate Group (immediate implant placement with bone grafting and delayed provisionalization) or the Delayed Group (ridge preservation followed by delayed implant placement and provisionalization). Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) was used preoperatively to assess palatal bone availability. Surgical procedures were standardized and performed by a single experienced oral and maxillofacial surgeon, while prosthetic procedures were completed by a single prosthodontist. Patients were followed up for 10 years to assess marginal bone levels (MBL), buccal bone thickness (BBT), soft tissue changes, aesthetic outcomes, patient satisfaction, and biological and technical complications.

Case selection: Patients with a compromised tooth in the maxillary aesthetic zone and a buccal bone defect of ≥5 mm following extraction were included. Patients were excluded if they met any of the following criteria: poor oral hygiene, inadequate mesio-distal space for implant placement, presence of periodontal disease, smoking, an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score of ≥II, or a vertical bony defect of less than 5 mm in the labial socket wall after tooth extraction.

Data analysis: The primary outcome, change in marginal bone level, was analyzed using a per-protocol strategy. Normally distributed data were summarized using means and confidence intervals and compared with the independent samples t-test, while non-normally distributed data were described using medians and interquartile ranges and compared using the Mann-Whitney U test. To check the robustness of the findings, sensitivity analyses were conducted, including an intention-to-treat analysis. For outcomes with repeated measurements, multivariable linear mixed-effect models were utilized to examine differences between the treatment groups over time. All statistical analyses were performed using the R software (version 4.0.5), and a p-value less than 0.05 was the criterion for statistical significance.

Results: After 10 years, the mean marginal bone level change was -0.71 ± 0.59 mm in the Immediate Group and -0.36 ± 0.39 mm in the Delayed Group, with no statistically significant difference between them (p = 0.063). Secondary outcomes showed no significant variations between the two groups.

Conclusions: Immediate implant placement with bone augmentation in postextraction sockets with buccal bony defects ≥5 mm yielded similar long-term outcomes to delayed implant placement after ridge preservation in the aesthetic zone, with no significant differences in bone stability, clinical performance, aesthetics, or patient satisfaction over 10 years.

美学区骨缺损牙槽即刻与延迟单牙种植体置入术:完整颊壁是否必要?
mejer H J A, Slagter K W, Gareb B, Hentenaar D F M, Vissink A, Raghoebar G .骨缺损即刻单牙种植的10年随机对照试验。牙周病杂志;96: 151 - 163。设计:这项单中心、10年随机对照试验(RCT)在荷兰格罗宁根大学医学中心(UMCG)进行,比较美学区缺牙和颊骨缺损≥5mm患者的即刻和延迟种植体置放。40例患者被随机分配到立即组(立即种植体植入植骨并延迟固定)或延迟组(保留脊骨后延迟种植体放置和固定)。术前使用锥形束计算机断层扫描(CBCT)评估腭骨可用性。手术程序标准化,由一名经验丰富的口腔颌面外科医生执行,而修复程序由一名修复牙医完成。患者随访10年,评估边缘骨水平(MBL)、颊骨厚度(BBT)、软组织变化、美学结果、患者满意度以及生物和技术并发症。病例选择:包括上颌美观区受损牙齿和拔牙后颊骨缺损≥5mm的患者。符合以下任何条件的患者均被排除:口腔卫生差,种植体中-远端间隙不足,存在牙周病,吸烟,美国麻醉医师协会(ASA)评分≥II,或拔牙后唇槽壁垂直骨缺损小于5mm。数据分析:主要结果,边缘骨水平的变化,使用每协议策略进行分析。正态分布的数据使用均值和置信区间进行汇总,并与独立样本t检验进行比较,而非正态分布的数据使用中位数和四分位数范围进行描述,并使用Mann-Whitney U检验进行比较。为了检查结果的稳健性,进行了敏感性分析,包括意向治疗分析。对于重复测量的结果,使用多变量线性混合效应模型来检查治疗组之间随时间的差异。所有统计分析均使用R软件(4.0.5版)进行,p值小于0.05为统计学显著性标准。结果:术后10年,即刻组平均骨缘变化为-0.71±0.59 mm,延迟组为-0.36±0.39 mm,差异无统计学意义(p = 0.063)。次要结果显示两组间无显著差异。结论:在拔牙后颊骨缺损≥5mm的牙槽即刻植入骨增强体与在美观区保留牙脊后延迟植入相似,在10年内在骨稳定性、临床表现、美观性或患者满意度方面没有显著差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Evidence-based dentistry
Evidence-based dentistry Dentistry-Dentistry (all)
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
77
期刊介绍: Evidence-Based Dentistry delivers the best available evidence on the latest developments in oral health. We evaluate the evidence and provide guidance concerning the value of the author''s conclusions. We keep dentistry up to date with new approaches, exploring a wide range of the latest developments through an accessible expert commentary. Original papers and relevant publications are condensed into digestible summaries, drawing attention to the current methods and findings. We are a central resource for the most cutting edge and relevant issues concerning the evidence-based approach in dentistry today. Evidence-Based Dentistry is published by Springer Nature on behalf of the British Dental Association.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信