ABSTRACT This narrative review compares the long-term clinical outcomes and survival rates of dental implants placed immediately after tooth extraction versus those inserted following a healing period. A comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed, MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar for English-language publications available up to January 2025. The search encompassed clinical trials, randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and prospective studies. Included studies specifically compared delayed implant placement performed after a minimum healing period of 2 months with immediate implant placement carried out at the time of tooth extraction. Implant survival, failure rates, complications, patient satisfaction, and peri-implant marginal bone changes were among the main outcomes evaluated. High survival rates for both protocols were consistently reported by studies published between 2008 and 2024; these rates typically ranged from 95% to 100% for immediate placement and 98% to 100% for delayed placement. There was no statistically significant difference in long-term survival between the two methods, according to the majority of comparative analyses. On occasion, though, immediate implant placement was linked to a marginally increased risk of complications, especially in locations with soft tissue or compromised bone. Clinical results for both protocols were improved by the use of adjunctive bone augmentation procedures and sophisticated imaging methods like cone-beam computed tomography. The best decision is based on the characteristics of each patient, the quality of the bone, and anatomical considerations, which balance treatment effectiveness with predictable osseointegration. Overall, both immediate and delayed implant placement produce excellent long-term results.
Sharma et al. (Tue,) studied this question.