to compare need for bone augmentation, surgical complications, periodontal, radiographic, aesthetic and patient reported outcomes in subjects receiving implant placement at the time of extraction (IMI) or 12 weeks thereafter.
METHODS:
Subjects requiring single tooth extraction in the anterior and premolar areas were recruited in 7 private practices. Implant position and choice of platform were restoratively driven. Measurements were performed by calibrated and masked examiners.
RESULTS:
IMI was unfeasible in 7.5% of cases. 124 subjects were randomized. One implant was lost in the IMI group. IMI required bone augmentation in 72% of cases compared with 43.9% for delayed (P=0.01), while wound failure occurred in 26.1% and 5.3% of cases, respectively (P=0.02). At 1 year, IMI had deeper probing depths (4.1±1.2 mm vs. 3.3±1.1 mm, P<0.01). A trend for greater radiographic bone loss was observed at IMI over the initial 3-year period (Ptrend<0.01). Inadequate pink aesthetic scores were obtained in 19% of delayed and in 42% of IMI implant cases (P=0.03). No differences in patient reported outcomes were observed.
CONCLUSIONS:
Immediate implant placement should not be recommended when aesthetics are important, IMI should be limited to selected cases. Longer follow-up is needed to assess differences in complication rates. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved
