Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Abstract Background It is unclear whether an intact buccal bony plate is a prerequisite for immediate implant placement in postextraction sockets. The aim of this 10‐year randomized controlled trial was to compare peri‐implant soft and hard tissue parameters, esthetic ratings of, and patient‐reported satisfaction with immediate implant placement in postextraction sockets with buccal bony defects ≥5 mm in the esthetic zone versus delayed implant placement after alveolar ridge preservation. Methods Patients presenting a failing tooth in the esthetic region and a buccal bony defect ≥5 mm after an extraction were randomly assigned to immediate (Immediate Group, n = 20) or delayed (Delayed Group, n = 20) implant placement. The second‐stage surgery and provisional restoration placement occurred 3 months after implant placement in both groups, followed by definitive restorations 3 months thereafter. During a 10‐year follow‐up period, marginal bone levels (primary outcome), buccal bone thickness, soft tissue parameters, esthetics, and patient‐reported satisfaction were recorded. Results The mean marginal bone level change was −0.71 ± 0.59 mm and −0.36 ± 0.39 mm in the Immediate Group and the Delayed Group after 10 years ( p = 0.063), respectively. The secondary outcomes were not significantly different between both groups. Conclusions Marginal bone level changes, buccal bone thickness, clinical outcomes, esthetics, and patients’ satisfaction following immediate implant placement, in combination with bone augmentation in postextraction sockets with buccal bony defects ≥5 mm, were not statistically different to those following delayed implant placement after ridge preservation in the esthetic zone. Plain language summary Immediate implant placement in case of a failing tooth is a favorable treatment option for patients because it considerably shortens treatment time and the number of surgical treatments. The question is if an intact buccal bone wall is necessary for immediate implant placement. A 10‐year study was performed in which 20 patients with a failing tooth in the frontal region of the upper jaw were treated with immediate implant placement and were compared with 20 patients in whom a more conventional treatment strategy was followed in which the failing tooth was first removed and the bone gap restored and the implant placed in a second step. After a 10‐year follow‐up period, it appeared that the bone around the implant was very stable, gums were healthy, and patients were very satisfied with the result. There was no difference between the two treatment procedures. Such results mean that professionals can discuss the procedure with the patient and apply the individual's preference.
Meijer et al. (Sun,) studied this question.