Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 17, 2025
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
Variations in Soft and Hard Tissues following Immediate Implant Placement versus Delayed Implant Placement following
Muthukumar Santhanakrishnan1, Nithyakalyani Ramesh2, R Kamaleeshwari2
1Faculty of Dental Sciences, Department of Periodontology, Sri Ramachandra Institute of Higher Education and Research, Porur, Chennai, 600116 Tamil Nadu, India.
Introduction:
Although retrospective analysis has shown immediate placement of implants (IIP) in the maxillary esthetic zone showing promising outcomes compared to delayed placement of implants following socket preservation (DIP), a direct comparison in a prospective, well-designed randomized fashion with adequate power analysis between the two implant placement protocols is still lacking. This study is aimed at radiographically evaluating the effect of IIP after extraction as compared to implant placed in preserved sockets 4 months following extraction (DIP) in terms of changes in buccal plate thickness(CBT) after 6 months of healing and evaluation of pink esthetic score (PES) for assessment of soft tissue changes and patient-related outcome measures (PROMs) using visual analogue scale (VAS).
Materials And Methods:
25 implants were placed immediately following extraction in the IIP group, and 25 implants were placed four months following socket preservation with demineralized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) and advanced platelet-rich fibrin (A-PRF) in the DIP group, control group, in the maxillary esthetic region. CBCT was taken preoperatively and 6 months postoperatively to assess the dimensional changes in the buccal bone plates(CBT). PES and PROMs for pain threshold and patient satisfaction using VAS were evaluated at the time of implant placement and 6 months postoperatively.
Results:
Significant differences in mean reduction in buccal plate thickness (CBT) were found in the test group (IIP) 0.2 ± 0.02 compared to the control group (DIP) which showed a mean reduction in CBT of 0.4 ± 0.1 (p < 0.001) at the end of 6 months. Although there was no statistically significant difference in PES between the groups, there was a significant difference between the groups when individual values of PES were compared at p < 0.001.
Conclusion:
The IIP group showed lesser reduction in CBT and a better PES which is an important clinical information which could be translated clinically in situations where implant placement is planned in the maxillary esthetic region. This trial is registered with CTRI/2019/06/019723.
