Esthetic, clinical, and radiographic outcomes of two surgical approaches for single implant in the esthetic area: 1‐year results of a randomized controlled trial with parallel design

• Published in: Clinical oral implants research 2019-08, Vol.30 (8), p.745-759
• Main Authors: Huynh‐Ba, Guy, Hoders, Ashley B., Meister, David J., Prihoda, Thomas J., Mills, Michael P., Mealey, Brian L., Cochran, David L.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Bleeding; bone regeneration; clinical research; clinical trials; Dental implants; Dentistry; guided tissue regeneration; Papillae; Patient satisfaction; patient‐centered outcomes; Placement; Plaque index; prosthodontics; Restoration; Soft tissues; soft tissue‐implant interactions; Surgical implants; surgical techniques
• ISSN: 0905-7161; 1600-0501
• DOI: 10.1111/clr.13458

Aim The objectives of this study were to compare (a) esthetic, (b) clinical, (c) radiographic, and (d) patient‐centered outcomes following immediate (Type 1) and early implant placement (Type 2). Material and Methods Forty‐six subjects needing a single extraction (premolar to premolar) were randomly allocated to Type 1 or Type 2 implant placement. One year following permanent restoration, evaluation of (a) Esthetics using soft tissue positions, and the pink and white esthetic scores (PES/WES), (b) Clinical performance using probing depth, modified plaque index, and sulcus bleeding index (c) Radiographic bone level, and (d) Patient satisfaction by means of visual analogue scales (VAS) was recorded. Results Thirty‐five patients completed the one‐year examination (Type 1, n = 20; Type 2, n = 15). Type 1 implants lost 1.03 ± 0.24 mm (mean ± SE) of mid‐facial soft tissue height while Type 2 implants lost 1.37 ± 0.28 mm (p = 0.17). The papillae height on the mesial and distal was reduced about 1 mm following both procedures. Frequency of clinical acceptability as defined by PES ≥ 6 (Type 1: 55% vs. Type 2 40%), WES ≥ 6 (Type 1: 45% vs. Type 2 27%) was not significantly different between groups (p > 0.05). Clinical and radiographic were indicative of peri‐implant health. Patient‐centered outcomes failed to demonstrate significant differences between the two cohorts. Conclusion One year after final restoration, there were no significant differences in esthetic, clinical, radiographic, and patient‐centered outcomes following Type 1 and Type 2 implant placement. At one year, patient satisfaction may be achieved irrespective of the two placement protocols.