Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 24, 2026
A Simplified Protocol for Protecting Palatal Soft Tissue Donor Sites Using an Oral Mucoadhesive Bandage
Published on: February 17, 2026
Soft tissues healing at immediate transmucosal implants placed into molar extraction sites with buccal self-contained
V Iorio Siciliano1, G E Salvi, S Matarasso
1Department of Dental and Maxillofacial Sciences, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.
Aim:
To assess soft tissues healing at immediate transmucosal implants placed into molar extraction sites with buccal self-contained dehiscences.
Material And Methods:
For this 12-month controlled clinical trial, 15 subjects received immediate transmucosal tapered-effect (TE) implants placed in molar extraction sockets displaying a buccal bone dehiscence (test sites) with a height and a width of > or =3 mm, respectively. Peri-implant marginal defects were treated according to the principles of Guided Bone Regeneration (GBR) by means of deproteinized bovine bone mineral particles in conjunction with a bioresorbable collagen membrane. Fifteen subjects received implants in healed molar sites (control sites) with intact buccal alveolar walls following tooth extraction. In total, 30 TE implants with an endosseous diameter of 4.8 mm and a shoulder diameter of 6.5 mm were used. Flaps were repositioned and sutured, allowing non-submerged, transmucosal soft tissues healing. At the 12-month follow-up, pocket probing depths (PPD) and clinical attachment levels (CAL) were compared between implants placed in the test and the control sites, respectively.
Results:
All subjects completed the 12-month follow-up period. All implants healed uneventfully, yielding a survival rate of 100%. After 12 months, statistically significantly higher (P<0.05) PPD and CAL values were recorded around implants placed in the test sites compared with those placed in the control sites.
Conclusions:
The findings of this controlled clinical trial showed that healing following immediate transmucosal implant installation in molar extraction sites with wide and shallow buccal dehiscences yielded less favorable outcomes compared with those of implants placed in healed sites, and resulted in lack of 'complete' osseointegration.
