Clinical and Radiographical Efficacy of Immediate Implant Placement Versus Delay Implant Placement

Abstract

Background: Immediate implant placement (IIP) has been increasingly popular in the recent years, particularly in the anterior region for esthetic reasons. The effect of IIP may overweight delay implant placement (DIP) in term of implant stability, success rate, clinical outcome, and radiological measures. Methodology: In this review, 484 randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials study have been reviewed for their title and abstracts. The review used PRISMA design for developing methods, and has searched both database of MEDLINE (PubMed) and The Cochrane Library. Twenty-eight papers and 1639 patients were been involved for the study analysis. Primary outcome variables were survival rate, failure rate and success rate, and secondary outcomes were clinical and radiological evaluation and aesthetic score in both IIP and DIP. Results: Implant success rate were slightly higher in DIP, and implant fail and complications have rated higher in IIP compared to DIP.  Probing depth (PD) is mostly similar in both protocols. Numerus studies in this review have demonstrated the significant healthier soft tissue such as keratinized mucosa (KM) width, peri-implant mucosal thickness (PMT) at implantation, loss of Midfacial Mucosa Level (MML) in the IIP procedure. High significant aesthetic score was observed in IIP protocol. Pink esthetic score (PET) score in both protocols were highly varies and controversial in nine studies. Six studies concluded the significant high mean of marginal bone loss (MBL) in DIP and five studies confirmed the significant high MBL in IIP. Conclusion: IIP has slightly higher in implant failure and clinical outcome in term of KM width, PMT at implantation, loss of MML in the IIP procedure. IIP was associated with better aesthetic score. More studies require to conclude the radiological evaluations in both protocols.