Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 29, 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 versus early implant placement for single tooth replacement in the aesthetic area: A systematic review and
Axelle Ickroth1, Lorenz Seyssens1, Véronique Christiaens1
1Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Oral Health Sciences, Department of Periodontology and Oral Implantology, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Objectives:
To compare immediate implant placement (IIP) with early implant placement (EIP) for single tooth replacement in the aesthetic area in terms of aesthetic, clinical, and patient-reported outcomes.
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 February 2023. Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) comparing IIP with EIP were included for a qualitative and quantitative analysis. The primary outcome was vertical midfacial soft tissue change. Secondary outcomes were horizontal midfacial soft tissue change, vertical papillary change, pink esthetic score (PES), implant survival, buccal bone thickness, marginal bone level change, patient discomfort, chair time, and patient satisfaction.
Results:
Out of 1185 records, 6 RCTs were selected, reporting on 222 patients who received 222 single implants (IIP: 112 implants in 112 patients; EIP: 110 implants in 110 patients) in the anterior maxilla or mandible. Patients had a mean age ranging from 35.6 to 52.6 years and were followed between 8 and 24 months. Two RCTs showed some concerns, and four showed a high risk of bias. Four studies could be included in a meta-analysis on the primary outcome and three only considered cases with an intact buccal bone wall. Meta-analysis failed to demonstrate a significant difference in terms of vertical midfacial soft tissue change between IIP and EIP (mean difference: 0.31 mm, 95% CI [-0.23; 0.86], p = .260; I2 = 83%, p < .001). No significant differences were found for PES (standardized mean difference: 0.92, 95% CI [-0.23; 2.07], p = .120; I2 = 89%, p < .001), implant survival (RR: 0.98, 95% CI [0.93, 1.03], p = .480; I2 = 0%, p = .980), and marginal bone level change (mean difference: 0.03 mm, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.17], p = .700; I2 = 0%, p = .470). Insufficient data were available for meta-analyses of other secondary outcomes.
Conclusion:
In low-risk patients with an intact buccal bone wall, there seems to be no difference between IIP and EIP in terms of aesthetic and clinical outcomes. The strength of this conclusion is rated as low since studies showed an unclear or high risk of bias. In addition, state-of-the-art therapy was only delivered in a minority of studies. Future RCTs should also provide data on patient-reported outcomes since these have been underreported.
