to compare need for bone augmentation, surgical complications, periodontal, radiographic, aesthetic and patient reported outcomes in subjects receiving implant placement at the time of extraction (IMI) or 12 weeks thereafter. METHODS: Subjects requiring single tooth extraction in the anterior and premolar areas were recruited in 7 private practices. Implant position and choice of platform were restoratively driven. Measurements were performed by calibrated and masked examiners. RESULTS: IMI was unfeasible in 7.5% of cases. 124 subjects were randomized. One implant was lost in the IMI group. IMI required bone augmentation in 72% of cases compared with 43.9% for delayed (P=0.01), while wound failure occurred in 26.1% and 5.3% of cases, respectively (P=0.02). At 1 year, IMI had deeper probing depths (4.1±1.2 mm vs. 3.3±1.1 mm, P<0.01). A trend for greater radiographic bone loss was observed at IMI over the initial 3-year period (Ptrend<0.01). Inadequate pink aesthetic scores were obtained in 19% of delayed and in 42% of IMI implant cases (P=0.03). No differences in patient reported outcomes were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Immediate implant placement should not be recommended when aesthetics are important, IMI should be limited to selected cases. Longer follow-up is needed to assess differences in complication rates. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Immediate vs. Delayed Implant Placement after Anterior Single Tooth Extraction: The Timing Randomised Controlled Clinical Trial.

GRAZIANI, FILIPPO;
2017-01-01

Abstract

to compare need for bone augmentation, surgical complications, periodontal, radiographic, aesthetic and patient reported outcomes in subjects receiving implant placement at the time of extraction (IMI) or 12 weeks thereafter. METHODS: Subjects requiring single tooth extraction in the anterior and premolar areas were recruited in 7 private practices. Implant position and choice of platform were restoratively driven. Measurements were performed by calibrated and masked examiners. RESULTS: IMI was unfeasible in 7.5% of cases. 124 subjects were randomized. One implant was lost in the IMI group. IMI required bone augmentation in 72% of cases compared with 43.9% for delayed (P=0.01), while wound failure occurred in 26.1% and 5.3% of cases, respectively (P=0.02). At 1 year, IMI had deeper probing depths (4.1±1.2 mm vs. 3.3±1.1 mm, P<0.01). A trend for greater radiographic bone loss was observed at IMI over the initial 3-year period (Ptrend<0.01). Inadequate pink aesthetic scores were obtained in 19% of delayed and in 42% of IMI implant cases (P=0.03). No differences in patient reported outcomes were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Immediate implant placement should not be recommended when aesthetics are important, IMI should be limited to selected cases. Longer follow-up is needed to assess differences in complication rates. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
2017
Tonetti, Ms; Cortellini, P; Graziani, Filippo; Cairo, F; Lang, Np; Abundo, R; Conforti, Gp; Marquardt, S; Rasperini, G; Silvestri, M; Wallkamm, B; Wet...espandi
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Tonetti_et_al-2017-Journal_of_Clinical_Periodontology.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipologia: Versione finale editoriale
Licenza: Creative commons
Dimensione 724.69 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
724.69 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11568/839657
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 23
  • Scopus 117
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 110
social impact