Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Nov 16;9(4):222-232.
doi: 10.11138/orl/2016.9.4.222. eCollection 2016 Oct-Dec.

Preservation of extraction socket in immediate implant placement: a clinical study

M DI Girolamo  1 , C A Arullani  2 , R Calcaterra  3 , J Manzi  1 , C Arcuri  4 , L Baggi  3
Affiliations

Preservation of extraction socket in immediate implant placement: a clinical study

M DI Girolamo et al. Oral Implantol (Rome). .

Abstract

Aim: The objective of this study was to compare different approaches temporary restoration in an immediate implant placement. To determine the respective influence of each parameter, two treatment groups were formed; a strict and standardized study protocol was applied to minimize the influence of bias and confounding factors. The Pink Esthetic Score (PES) - the esthetic out-come of soft tissue appearance was evaluated.

Material and methods: Sixteen patients with a single failing tooth in the maxilla and a natural contralateral site were randomly distributed into two groups. Treatment variations affected the provisional restorative in detail, group 1 with immediate implant placement and immediate temporary restoration with the simulation of the first three mm of the root and the seal of the socket, group 2 with immediate implant placement and immediate temporary restoration without the seal of the socket. All patients received the final prosthetic restoration 10-12 weeks after implant placement. Standardized photographs were taken eight months after tooth extraction. Five competent observers analyzed the esthetic outcome according to the PES.

Results: The overall scores of the four treatment groups revealed PES values of 8.47 (SD 2.08, group 1), 6.62 (SD 3.24, group 2). The differences between groups 1 and 2 and were statistically significant (P=0.015 and P=0.047). The single parameter analysis displayed a certain range of fluctuation and heterogeneity.

Conclusions: Immediate implant placement and restoration appear to be a suitable alternative to early implant placement if an experienced surgeon is entrusted with the implantation procedure.

Keywords: Pink Esthetic Score; esthetic outcome; immediate implant placement; immediate restoration; single implant.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Group test - Initial phase.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Group 1 - Insertion of implant.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Group 1 - Abutment.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Group 1 - Temporary crown.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Group 1 - Temporary crown.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Group 1 - Final crown.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Group 2 - Initial Phase.
Figure 8
Figure 8
Group 2 - Extracted tooth.
Figure 9
Figure 9
Group 2 - Temporary crown.
Figure 10
Figure 10
Group 2 - Temporary crown.
Figure 11
Figure 11
Group 2 - Final crown.
Figure 12
Figure 12
Overall PES results with standard deviations in the two treatment groups. 1 (Group 1) immediate implant and immediate restoration whit seal socket. 2 (Group 2) immediate implant and immediate restoration without seal socket.
Figure 13
Figure 13
Mean scores with standard deviations for the seven single PES parameters in the four treatment groups.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Belser UC, Grutter L, Vailati F, Bornstein MM, Weber HP, Buser D. Outcome evaluation of early placed maxillary anterior single-tooth implants using objective esthetic criteria: a cross-sectional, retrospective study in 45 patients with a 2- to 4-year follow-up using pink and white esthetic scores. Journal of Periodontology. 2009;80:140–151. - PubMed
    1. Martin WC, Pollini A, Morton D. The influence of restorative procedures on outcomes in implant dentistry: a systematic review. The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants. 2014;29(Suppl):142–154. - PubMed
    1. Esposito M, Grusovin MG, Polyzos IP, Felice P, Worthington HV. Timing of implant placement after tooth extraction: immediate, immediate-delayed or delayed implants? A Cochrane systematic review. European Journal of Oral Implantology. 2010;3:189–205. - PubMed
    1. Chiapasco M, Casentini P, Zaniboni M. Bone augmentation procedures in implant dentistry. The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants. 2009;24(Suppl):237–259. - PubMed
    1. Heammerle CH, Araujo MG, Simion M. Evidence-based knowledge on the biology and treatment of extraction sockets. Osteology Consensus Group 2011. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2012;23(Suppl 5):80–82. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources