Clinical and cone beam computed tomography outcomes of maxillary anterior implant restorations after immediate implant placement with interim restorations: A 1- to 14-year retrospective analysis.

UNLABELLED

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Achieving and maintaining optimal tissue health and esthetics when immediately placing maxillary anterior implants with interim restorations has been challenging and the clinical outcomes heterogenous.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes of immediate placement of maxillary anterior implants with interim restorations and compare the tomographic and clinical results before and after implant placement in participants followed for 1 to 14 years.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Twenty participants receiving 25 postextraction single implants in the anterior maxilla were studied. Clinical parameters included pink esthetic score (PES) and white esthetic score (WES), peri-implant phenotype, implant probing, plaque index, and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) to compare initial and at least 1 year after crown placement (postoperative). For qualitative variables, a descriptive analysis was carried out. The PES and WES results were analyzed by using nonparametric statistics, the median (ME) and the interquartile range (IQR) were used as summary measures, and the Wilcoxon sum of signs test was used to compare the total scores between the intervention area and the contralateral tooth. To compare pre- and postoperative data points, the paired t test was used (α=.05).

RESULTS

Mean ±standard deviation (SD) time of follow-up was 7.6 ±4.2 years. Twenty participants with a mean ±SD age of 62.4 ±11.0 years old received 25 implants. Mean ±SD initial torque value at implant placement was 38.6 ±9.63 Ncm. Bone height at the top of the alveolar ridge (BH) and bone width at the middle of the alveolar ridge (BW2) showed a statistically significant decrease between the initial and subsequent CBCT measurements (both P<.001). Likewise, the bone width at the alveolar crest (BW1) showed a statistically significant decrease between the initial and post-CBCT measurements (P=.006). Facial bone integrity (FBI) revealed a statistically significant increase between the initial and postoperative time periods (P<.001). The PES index showed a median of 9.0 IQR (8-10), statistically lower than the contralateral tooth (P=.032). No significant differences were found for the WES index or for FBI, regardless of the peri-implant phenotype.

CONCLUSIONS

Immediate implant placement in the maxillary anterior sextant was found to be a predictable procedure with good esthetic results when the protocol described was used. Labial bone loss is inevitable after tooth extraction but can be compensated for by filling the space with a xenograft material. Long-term gingival tissue integrity was maintained, regardless of phenotype, in periodontally healthy participants.