Objectives: To compare the success rates, tissue preservation, and esthetics of implants placed in fresh and preserved sockets and to evaluate the factors influencing the outcomes.
Methods: Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, Wanfang, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) databases were searched electronically, and a manual search was conducted as well. Studies that compared the implant success rate, tissue preservation, and patient-related outcomes such as complications and esthetic outcomes of immediate implant placement (IIP) and alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) were included. A subgroup analysis according to the follow-up period, socket conditions, and regenerative strategies was performed to investigate how these factors influence the prognosis.
Results: A total of 12 studies with 588 implants, where 298 are implants after ARP and the remaining 290 are after IIP. The IIP was performed in 58.4% of 250 implants inserted in the sockets with an intact buccal wall, whereas the percentage declined to 41.9% when the buccal wall was defective. The implant success rate was similar between ARP and IIP for an intact buccal wall but different for a defective buccal wall (ARP 98.6% vs IIP 89.6%). Moreover, hard-tissue preservation and the Pink Esthetic Score (PES) of the ARP group were significantly better than those of the IIP group in the molar region (P < .05). Also short-term complications showed no significant differences in the ARP group (P = .06). In the anterior region, there appeared to be no significant difference in hard- and soft-tissue preservation PES and patient-related outcomes between the 2 protocols.
Conclusion: An alveolar bone defect might reduce the success rate of IIP. Further studies on the tissue preservation and esthetics of implants placed by IIP and ARP are still needed.
Keywords: Alveolar ridge preservation; Dental implantation; Esthetics; Immediate implant placement.
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.