Shanghai Journal of Stomatology ›› 2019, Vol. 28 ›› Issue (2): 148-153.doi: 10.19439/j.sjos.2019.02.008

• Original Articles • Previous Articles     Next Articles

Comparison of short-term clinical effect and assessment of influencial factors around single-tooth in the aesthetic area: immediate implant placement versus delayed implant placement

XIE Yan-ting, JIANG Lu-lu, HE Jing, DENG Chun-fu, ZHAO Bao-hong   

  1. Center for Implant Dentistry, Stomatological Hospital, China Medical University; Liaoning Institute of Dental Research, Liaoning Provincial Research Center of Translational Oral Medicine. Shenyang 110002, Liaoning Province, China
  • Received:2018-03-13 Revised:2018-09-15 Online:2019-04-25 Published:2019-06-20

Abstract: PURPOSE: To compare the short-term clinical effect and to assess the influencial factors of immediate implant placement and delayed implant placement around single-tooth implant in the aesthetic area. METHODS: A total of 114 patients requiring a single-tooth implant in the aesthetic area were reviewed at Center for Implant Dentistry of Stomatological Hospital of China Medical University. They were divided into immediate implant group and delayed implant group. The patients were followed up for 1 year after upper structure rehabilitation, and the pink esthetic score and the marginal bone absorption around the implants were measured. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 17.0 software package. RESULTS: After 1 year of upper structure rehabilitation, 114 implants were stable and the marginal bone absorption around the implants of the immediate implant group was (0.36±0.39) mm,significantly smaller than the delayed implant group [(0.79±0.67)mm, P<0.001]. The difference in PES score between the two groups were not statistically significant on the day of rehabilitation and 1 year after upper structure rehabilitation(P>0.05). Significant improvement of PES on the day of rehabilitation and 1 year after upper structure rehabilitation and marginal bone absorption was found with flapless surgery. SLA and DAE surface treatment methods had no significant impact on PES and marginal bone absorption (P>0.05). Graft procedure had an unfavorable effect on PES value both on the day of rehabilitation and 1 year after upper structure rehabilitation. CONCLUSIONS: Under appropriate indications, immediate implant placement and immediate repair could reduce the time of missing teeth. The marginal bone absorption of immediate implant group is smaller than delayed implant group. Flapless surgery avoids damage to gingival tissue, reduces postoperative reaction and improves the aesthetic outcomes after repair.

Key words: Aesthetic area, Immediate implant, Delay implant, Flapless surgery, Immediate repair