Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 7, 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
Immediate implant placement with or without immediate provisionalization: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Jeremy Pitman1, Lorenz Seyssens1, Véronique Christiaens1
1Department of Periodontology and Oral Implantology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Oral Health Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Aim:
To assess the effect of immediate provisionalization (IP) on soft tissue changes, hard tissue changes, and clinical parameters following single immediate implant placement (IIP).
Materials And Methods:
Two independent reviewers conducted an electronic literature search in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane databases as well as a manual search to identify eligible clinical studies up to September 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IIP with IP (test) and IIP without IP (control) were included for a qualitative and quantitative analysis. The primary outcome was vertical midfacial soft tissue changes. Secondary outcomes included horizontal midfacial soft tissue changes, implant survival, mesial and distal papillary changes, Pink Esthetic Score (PES) at final follow-up, marginal bone-level changes, probing depth at final follow-up, and bleeding on probing at final follow-up.
Results:
Of the 8213 records, 7 RCTs reporting on 323 patients who received 323 single immediate implants (IIP + IP: 161 implants in 161 patients; IIP: 162 implants in 162 patients) were selected with a mean follow-up ranging from 12 to 60 months. Risk of bias assessment yielded some concerns for five RCTs and high risk for two RCTs. Meta-analysis on the cases with intact alveoli demonstrated 0.87 mm (95% confidence interval [CI] [0.57; 1.17], p < .001) less apical migration of the midfacial soft tissue level for IIP + IP when compared to IIP alone. Implant survival, papillary changes, marginal bone-level changes, probing depth, and bleeding on probing were not significantly affected by IP. Insufficient data were available for meta-analyses on horizontal midfacial soft tissue changes and PES.
Conclusions:
IP may contribute to midfacial soft tissue stability at immediate implants. However, high-quality RCTs are needed since the strength of this conclusion is currently rated as low according to GRADE guidelines.
