Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 7, 2025
11:51
An Improved Mechanical Testing Method to Assess Bone-implant Anchorage
Published on: February 10, 2014
15.6K
Marginal Bone Level and Bone Thickness Reduction in Delayed and Immediate Implant Placement Protocol 6 Months
Maroun Dagher1, Nadim Mokbel1, Rami Aboukhalil1
1Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Saint Joseph University, Riad el Solh, P. O. Box: 11-5076, Beirut, 11072050 Lebanon.
Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery
|June 17, 2022
Summary
Immediate versus delayed dental implant placement shows comparable marginal bone level changes. However, immediate implants exhibit greater buccal bone thickness reduction, suggesting a need for augmentation in esthetic cases.
Area of Science:
- Dental Implantology
- Periodontology
- Oral Surgery
Background:
- Dental implant success relies on maintaining marginal bone levels and bone thickness.
- Immediate implant placement offers potential advantages but requires careful evaluation of bone response compared to delayed placement.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare marginal bone level (MBL) and bone thickness reduction (BTR) around dental implants placed immediately versus delayed.
- To assess these parameters 6 months after loading in a prospective study.
Main Methods:
- A prospective study comparing immediate (Test) and delayed (Control) implant placement in 24 patients.
- Radiographic analysis (periapical and CBCT) at baseline and 6 months post-loading to measure MBL and BTR.
- Statistical analysis to compare outcomes between the two groups.
Main Results:
- No significant difference in MBL change between immediate and delayed implant groups at any surface (mesial, distal, buccal, palatal).
- Greater MBL change occurred buccally compared to palatally in both groups.
- Significant buccal bone thickness reduction was observed in both groups, with higher BTR in the immediate placement group.
- Implant stability increased in both groups, with a positive correlation between insertion torque and stability in the control group.
Conclusions:
- Marginal bone level changes around implants are comparable between immediate and delayed placement protocols.
- Buccal bone thickness reduction is more pronounced with immediate implant placement.
- Increased implant stability was noted in both protocols, but immediate placement warrants consideration for bone augmentation, especially in esthetic areas.
