Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 2, 2026
Calvarial Model of Bone Augmentation in Rabbit for Assessment of Bone Growth and Neovascularization in Bone Substitution Materials
Published on: August 13, 2019
Marginal bone level change of immediately restored implants with simultaneous guided bone regeneration: A systematic
Xinyan Lin1,2,3,4,5,6,7, Xinbo Yu1,2,3,4,5,6,7, Feng Wang1,2,3,4,5,6,7
1Second Dental Center, Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Aim:
To assess marginal bone level change (MBLc), clinical outcomes for soft tissue, and survival rates for immediately restored implants with simultaneous guided bone regeneration (GBR).
Materials And Methods:
Electronic and manual searches were conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL for studies that investigated immediately restored implants in simultaneously grafted sites with a mean follow-up of over 12 months. MBLc was the primary outcome. Soft tissue clinical parameters and implant survival rate (ISR) were the secondary outcomes.
Results:
Twenty-five studies (5 randomized controlled trials, 6 prospective studies, 2 retrospective studies, and 12 case series) were included, from which 692 immediately restored implants were analyzed. For studies that investigated bone grafts in the gap between the implant and the peripheral bone wall, the weighted mean MBLc was -0.73 ± 1.52 mm (range: -1.50 to 0.26 mm) for 475 implants. Pink esthetic score (PES) was improved in eight studies and the weighted cumulative ISR was 98.99% (Median: 100%) in 622 implants. Mean MBLc was -1.19 ± 0.26 mm for 30 implants in studies that reported gap with dehiscence and/or fenestration augmentation. Weighted cumulative ISR was 97.25% in 70 implants. A meta-analysis was not possible due to the lack of studies with an eligible control group. Therefore, the data should be interpreted with caution.
Conclusion:
Less marginal bone loss and more predictable soft tissue parameters can be achieved for immediately restored implants with simultaneous peri-implant gap filling compared with gap with dehiscence/fenestration grafting. Increased ISR for implants with gap filling was observed. However, more evidence is needed to confirm whether immediate provisional prostheses should be utilized when bone defects are simultaneously augmented around the implants.
