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
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2025 Feb;96(2):151-163.
doi: 10.1002/JPER.24-0251. Epub 2024 Aug 11.

Immediate single-tooth implant placement in bony defect sites: A 10-year randomized controlled trial

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Immediate single-tooth implant placement in bony defect sites: A 10-year randomized controlled trial

Henny J A Meijer et al. J Periodontol. 2025 Feb.

Abstract

Background: It is unclear whether an intact buccal bony plate is a prerequisite for immediate implant placement in postextraction sockets. The aim of this 10-year randomized controlled trial was to compare peri-implant soft and hard tissue parameters, esthetic ratings of, and patient-reported satisfaction with immediate implant placement in postextraction sockets with buccal bony defects ≥5 mm in the esthetic zone versus delayed implant placement after alveolar ridge preservation.

Methods: Patients presenting a failing tooth in the esthetic region and a buccal bony defect ≥5 mm after an extraction were randomly assigned to immediate (Immediate Group, n = 20) or delayed (Delayed Group, n = 20) implant placement. The second-stage surgery and provisional restoration placement occurred 3 months after implant placement in both groups, followed by definitive restorations 3 months thereafter. During a 10-year follow-up period, marginal bone levels (primary outcome), buccal bone thickness, soft tissue parameters, esthetics, and patient-reported satisfaction were recorded.

Results: The mean marginal bone level change was -0.71 ± 0.59 mm and -0.36 ± 0.39 mm in the Immediate Group and the Delayed Group after 10 years (p = 0.063), respectively. The secondary outcomes were not significantly different between both groups.

Conclusions: Marginal bone level changes, buccal bone thickness, clinical outcomes, esthetics, and patients' satisfaction following immediate implant placement, in combination with bone augmentation in postextraction sockets with buccal bony defects ≥5 mm, were not statistically different to those following delayed implant placement after ridge preservation in the esthetic zone.

Plain language summary: Immediate implant placement in case of a failing tooth is a favorable treatment option for patients because it considerably shortens treatment time and the number of surgical treatments. The question is if an intact buccal bone wall is necessary for immediate implant placement. A 10-year study was performed in which 20 patients with a failing tooth in the frontal region of the upper jaw were treated with immediate implant placement and were compared with 20 patients in whom a more conventional treatment strategy was followed in which the failing tooth was first removed and the bone gap restored and the implant placed in a second step. After a 10-year follow-up period, it appeared that the bone around the implant was very stable, gums were healthy, and patients were very satisfied with the result. There was no difference between the two treatment procedures. Such results mean that professionals can discuss the procedure with the patient and apply the individual's preference.

Keywords: alveolar bone loss; bone transplantation; dental implants.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The study was supported by an unrestricted grant from Nobel Biocare Services AG, Gothenburg, Sweden (by means of implant materials; research grant 2012‐1135). The authors report no conflicts of interest.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
CONSORT flow diagram.

References

    1. Zhou X, Yang J, Wu L, et al. Evaluation of the effect of implants placed in preserved sockets versus fresh sockets on tissue preservation and esthetics: a meta‐analysis and systematic review. J Evid Based Dent Pract. 2019;19:101336. doi:10.1016/j.jebdp.2019.05.015 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Canellas JV, Medeiros PJ, Figueredo CM, Fischer RG, Ritto FG. Which is the best choice after tooth extraction, immediate implant placement or delayed placement with alveolar ridge preservation? A systematic review and meta‐analysis. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2019;47:1793‐1802. doi:10.1016/j.jcms.2019.08.004 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Pommer B, Danzinger M, Leite Aiquel L, Pitta J, Haas R. Long‐term outcomes of maxillary single‐tooth implants in relation to timing protocols of implant placement and loading: systematic review and meta‐analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2021;32(suppl 21):56‐66. doi:10.1111/clr.13838 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Garcia‐Sanchez R, Dopico J, Kalemaj Z, Buti J, Pardo Zamora G, Mardas N. Comparison of clinical outcomes of immediate versus delayed placement of dental implants: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2022;33:231‐277. doi:10.1111/clr.13892 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Cosyn J, Blanco J. EAO position paper: immediate implant placement: managing hard and soft tissue stability from diagnosis to prosthetic treatment. Int J Prosthodont. 2023;36:533‐545. 10.11607/ijp.8544 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources