Individualized healing significantly improves pink esthetics around immediate single implants: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

IF 17.8 1区医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE

Periodontology 2000 Pub Date : 2026-08-31 DOI:10.1111/prd.70089

Xinyi Qian, Boldizsár Vánkos, Gergely Agócs, Kata Kelemen, Alexander Schulze Wenning, Barbara Kispélyi, Gábor Gerber, Gábor Varga, Péter Hermann, Péter Hegyi, Anton Sculean, German O. Gallucci, Krisztina Mikulás

{"title":"Individualized healing significantly improves pink esthetics around immediate single implants: A systematic review and meta‐analysis","authors":"Xinyi Qian, Boldizsár Vánkos, Gergely Agócs, Kata Kelemen, Alexander Schulze Wenning, Barbara Kispélyi, Gábor Gerber, Gábor Varga, Péter Hermann, Péter Hegyi, Anton Sculean, German O. Gallucci, Krisztina Mikulás","doi":"10.1111/prd.70089","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim This systematic review and meta‐analysis aimed to compare soft and hard tissue outcomes of applying anatomic healing abutments (AHA) and provisional restorations (PR) versus cylindrical healing abutments (CHA) on immediately placed single implants. Materials and Methods Four databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science) were searched on September 8, 2025, for two‐armed studies comparing AHA/PR to CHA on immediate single‐tooth implants. Outcomes included implant survival (IS), marginal bone loss (MBL), pink esthetic score (PES), patient satisfaction, as well as buccal bone and mucosal changes. Random‐effects meta‐analyses were performed. Results Twenty studies were included; 12 contributed to quantitative synthesis, showing no difference in IS (over 99% in all groups), MBL, or patient satisfaction. Pooled analysis of seven studies (340 implants) showed higher PES with AHA and PR than CHA group at 1 year (MD: 2.54; 95% CI: 1.12–3.96). Descriptive evidence suggested a trend toward improved horizontal tissue preservation with individualized healing. Conclusion Within the limitations of this study, PR significantly improved PES without compromising IS or MBL. Their use may be beneficial, especially in the esthetic region, but further studies are needed to investigate their cost‐effectiveness and long‐term effect, especially on horizontal tissue changes. Clinical Implications Anatomically shaped healing abutments and provisional restorations provide higher pink esthetics around immediately placed single implants, which is especially relevant for restorations in the anterior region.","PeriodicalId":19736,"journal":{"name":"Periodontology 2000","volume":"159 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":17.8000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Periodontology 2000","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/prd.70089","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim This systematic review and meta‐analysis aimed to compare soft and hard tissue outcomes of applying anatomic healing abutments (AHA) and provisional restorations (PR) versus cylindrical healing abutments (CHA) on immediately placed single implants. Materials and Methods Four databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science) were searched on September 8, 2025, for two‐armed studies comparing AHA/PR to CHA on immediate single‐tooth implants. Outcomes included implant survival (IS), marginal bone loss (MBL), pink esthetic score (PES), patient satisfaction, as well as buccal bone and mucosal changes. Random‐effects meta‐analyses were performed. Results Twenty studies were included; 12 contributed to quantitative synthesis, showing no difference in IS (over 99% in all groups), MBL, or patient satisfaction. Pooled analysis of seven studies (340 implants) showed higher PES with AHA and PR than CHA group at 1 year (MD: 2.54; 95% CI: 1.12–3.96). Descriptive evidence suggested a trend toward improved horizontal tissue preservation with individualized healing. Conclusion Within the limitations of this study, PR significantly improved PES without compromising IS or MBL. Their use may be beneficial, especially in the esthetic region, but further studies are needed to investigate their cost‐effectiveness and long‐term effect, especially on horizontal tissue changes. Clinical Implications Anatomically shaped healing abutments and provisional restorations provide higher pink esthetics around immediately placed single implants, which is especially relevant for restorations in the anterior region.

查看原文本刊更多论文

个体化治疗显著改善了即刻单次植入的粉红色美学：一项系统回顾和荟萃分析

目的：本系统综述和荟萃分析旨在比较解剖愈合基台（AHA）和临时修复体（PR）与圆柱形愈合基台（CHA）在立即放置单种植体上的软硬组织结果。材料和方法于2025年9月8日检索了四个数据库（PubMed, Embase， Cochrane和Web of Science），比较AHA/PR和CHA在即刻单牙种植体上的双臂研究。结果包括种植体存活（IS）、边缘骨损失（MBL）、粉红色美学评分（PES）、患者满意度以及颊骨和粘膜变化。进行随机效应meta分析。结果共纳入20项研究；12例有助于定量合成，显示IS（所有组均超过99%）、MBL或患者满意度无差异。7项研究（340个植入物）的汇总分析显示，AHA和PR组1年PES高于CHA组（MD: 2.54; 95% CI: 1.12-3.96）。描述性证据表明，在个体化愈合的情况下，水平组织保存有改善的趋势。结论：在本研究的局限性内，PR在不影响IS或MBL的情况下显著改善了PES。它们的使用可能是有益的，特别是在审美区域，但需要进一步的研究来调查它们的成本效益和长期效果，特别是对水平组织变化的影响。解剖形状的愈合基台和临时修复体在立即放置的单个种植体周围提供了更高的粉红色美学，这与前区修复尤其相关。

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

Periodontology 2000 医学-牙科与口腔外科

CiteScore

34.10

自引率

2.20%

发文量

审稿时长

>12 weeks

期刊介绍： Periodontology 2000 is a series of monographs designed for periodontists and general practitioners interested in periodontics. The editorial board selects significant topics and distinguished scientists and clinicians for each monograph. Serving as a valuable supplement to existing periodontal journals, three monographs are published annually, contributing specialized insights to the field.