Objective: To compare the peri-implant tissue stability between immediate implant and delayed implant in maxillary anterior region after loading 2 years.
Methods: In the study, 38 patients with single anterior tooth loss in the Second Clinical Division of Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology from October 2010 to December 2011 were enrolled, and 43 implants were inserted. The gingival contour was induced using implant-supported temporary crowns prior to restoration till permanent prostheses delivered. The gingival papilla height, labial gingival margin level and peri-implant bone level were measured immediately after the permanent restoration and 2 years later.
Results: In the study, 16 patients were treated by immediate implant for 17 implants; 22 patients were treated by delayed implant for 26 implants. The implant stability quotient (ISQ) value of the 2 groups showed no significant difference before permanent restoration (P>0.05). In all the cases after loading 2 years, the average mesial gingival papilla height in the implant area of the immediate group and delayed group increased by (0.15 ± 0.42) mm and (0.06 ± 0.65) mm, respectively; the distal gingival papilla height increased by (0.06 ± 0.50) mm and (0.02 ± 0.57) mm respectively; while the labial gingival margin level shrinkages were (0.15 ± 0.23) mm and (0.15 ± 0.46) mm, respectively. The peri-implant bone losses in the mesial side were (0.67 ± 0.35) mm and (0.6 9 ± 0.49) mm, respectively, while in the distal side were (0.73 ± 0.31) mm and (0.75 ± 0.48) mm, respectively. All these indicators showed no significant difference between the 2 groups (P>0.05).
Conclusion: Both the cases obtained optimizer results after loading 2 years, and the soft and hard tissues around the implant were very stable, which means that both the protocols can achieve reliable therapeutic effects. If we can handle the indications, immediate implant for anterior teeth shows similar efficacy with delayed implant in the short term. But immediate implant in terms of shortening the course of treatment is clearly superior to delayed implant.