Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 16, 2026
Real-Time Dynamic Navigation System for the Precise Quad-Zygomatic Implant Placement in a Patient with a Severely Atrophic Maxilla
Published on: October 18, 2021
Immediate implant placement and provisionalization in the aesthetic zone using a flapless or a flap-involving
Janet Stoupel1, Chun-Teh Lee1, Jaclyn Glick1
1Division of Periodontics, Section of Oral, Diagnostic and Rehabilitation Sciences, College of Dental Medicine, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
Aim:
We conducted a randomized controlled trial to compare the effect of flapless (FLS) or flap-involving (F) immediate placement and provisionalization of single-tooth implants in the aesthetic zone.
Materials And Methods:
Thirty-nine patients were randomized following extraction of a non-restorable tooth to a FLS or F group. All implants were immediately placed and provisionalized. We monitored prospectively changes in the peri-implant mucosal margin, the interproximal bone and buccal horizontal ridge at 3, 6 and 12 months.
Results:
At 3 months post-surgery, the mean ± SD [median (interquartile range)] mesiobuccal peri-implant gingival margin recession from the pre-surgical soft tissue position amounted to 0.11 ± 0.32 mm [0 (0, 0.5)] in the FLS treatment arm versus 0.43 ± 37 mm [0.5 (0, 0.5)] in the F treatment arm (p = 0.02); corresponding values at the distobuccal surface were 0.11 ± 32 mm [0 (0, 0)] in the FLS arm versus 0.48 ± 0.44 mm [0.5 (0, 1)] in the F arm (p = 0.01). No other significant differences in soft or hard tissue remodelling between the treatment arms were observed at 3, 6 or 12 months.
Conclusions:
Flapless and a flap-involving immediate implant placement and provisionalization in the aesthetic zone resulted in comparable remodelling of the peri-implant mucosa, interproximal bone and buccal ridge at 6 and 12 months.
