Prosthodontic And Aesthetic Outcomes Of Immediate And Delayed Implant-supported Restoration Following Immediate Single-tooth Implant Placement In The Esthetic Zone

ObjectiveThe aim of present study was to analyze the prosthodontic and aestheticperi-implant mucosal outcomes of immediate and delayed implant-supportedrestoration following immediate single-tooth implant placement in the esthetic zone，and to evaluate whether the timing of provisional implant restoration could make thedefinitive restoration different significantly.MethodsThe present study included20patients with maxillary single tooth deficiency thatsatisfied the specified inclusion criteria and received immediate implant placement.They were allocated to immediate restoration（test group；n=9）and delayed restoration（control group；n=11） groups. The test group took the provision crowns，out ofocclusion，after implant placement and received the definitive crowns3~4monthslater. The control inserted resin-bonded prosthesis，had the second surgery after3~4months，used the provisional crowns for gingival induction and received the definitivecrowns about2months later. Successful rate of implants，pink esthetic score（PES）and satisfaction rate of the patients were calculated for both groups.ResultsThe successful rate of the implants was95%and there was a patient suffered afistula on the labialmucosal and about2mm bone absorption in medial edge. The PESof the study group was8.50±1.20，while the control group was8.23±0.97，whichthe differences had no statistical significance (P>0.05). What was more，whether thestudy group or control group，the aesthetic score of the definitive restoration afterthree months (the study group8.78±1.20，the control group8.64±0.92) was higherthan that on the day after repair (the study group8.22±1.20，the control group7.82±0.87)，and they had statistical differences(P<0.05). The PES of the papillae wasthe lowest，level of facial mucosa medium，while curvature of facial mucosa，root convexity tissue color and texture were the highest. The satisfaction rates abouttreatment outcome and process of the test group were88.89%and100%while thecontrol group81.82%and63.64%.ConclusionImmediate implant-supported restoration for preservation of soft tissue was asprosthodontically and aesthetically successful as delayed implant-supportedrestoration for regeneration of soft tissue following immediate single-tooth implantplacement in the esthetic zone. The immediate restoration one was better but therewere no statistically significant differences between them. The aesthetic outcome ofthe definitive restoration after three months was better than that on the day after repairand they had statistical differences.The satisfaction rate of the treatment outcome andtreatment process of the test group was higher than the control group, but they had nostatistical differences.