STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Immediate implant placement with an immediate interim restoration is a well-established protocol. Nevertheless, a consensus regarding the impact of immediate interim restoration on peri-implant tissues around single dental implants is lacking.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to address the research question: "Does the placement of an immediate interim restoration influence the mid-facial mucosal (MFM) marginal and interdental papilla (IDP) levels around single dental implants placed in the anterior esthetic region by using an immediate implant placement protocol?"

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was made in the Medline/PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, and Science Direct electronic databases for articles published in English evaluating the impact of immediate interim restoration on peri-implant tissues around single dental implants in the anterior esthetic region. The primary outcomes assessed were changes in the MFM marginal and IDP levels. Additional outcomes were marginal bone (MB) loss, esthetic outcomes involving the pink and white esthetic scores (PES and WES), implant survival rates, and patient reported outcome measures (PROMs). The risk of bias assessment was performed by using the RoB 2 tool for randomized trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for nonrandomized studies. Meta-analysis was performed by using random and fixed effects model (α=.05) in the RevMan software program.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies were included that analyzed 836 single dental implants involving 823 patients. The meta-analysis showed no significant differences in implants with and without interim restoration in terms of MFM marginal level (MD=0.01; 95% CI=-1.23 to 1.25; P=.98), mesial IDP level (MD=0.12; 95% CI=-0.23 to 0.47; P=.50), distal IDP level (MD=0.20; 95% CI=-0.40 to 0.79; P=.52), and MB loss (MD=0.01; 95% CI=-0.42 to 0.43; P=.97). The systematic analysis for survival rates determined no notable difference in implants with or without an interim restoration. However, the esthetic outcomes and PROMs substantially improved with immediate interim restorations. The RoB 2 tool showed a moderate to low risk of bias, and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale indicated high-quality studies.

CONCLUSIONS

After a 12-month follow-up, immediate interim restoration had no significant impact on peri-implant soft (MFM marginal and IDP levels) and hard tissues (MB loss) around immediately placed single dental implants. Nevertheless, additional well-designed and well-implemented clinical trials with long-term follow-up periods are needed to provide more precise evidence-based recommendations.