Long-term stability of early implant placement with contour augmentation

Abstract

In this prospective case series study, 20 patients with an implant-borne single crown following early implant placement with simultaneous contour augmentation were followed for 6 years. Clinical, radiologic, and esthetic parameters were assessed. In addition, cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) was used at 6 years to examine the facial bone wall. During the study period, all 20 implants were successfully integrated, and the clinical parameters remained stable over time. Pleasing esthetic outcomes were noted, as assessed by the pink esthetic scores. None of the implants developed mucosal recession of 1 mm or more. The periapical radiographs yielded stable peri-implant bone levels, with a mean DIB of 0.44 mm at 6 years. The CBCT scans showed that all 20 implants had a detectable facial bone wall at 6 years, with a mean thickness of around 1.9 mm. In summary, this prospective case series study demonstrated stable peri-implant hard and soft tissues for all 20 implants, and pleasing esthetic outcomes overall. The follow-up of 6 years confirmed that the risk for mucosal recession is low with early implant placement. In addition, contour augmentation with guided bone regeneration (GBR) was able to establish and maintain a facial bone wall in all 20 patients.

Keywords: dental implant; esthetic complication; esthetic outcome; guided bone regeneration; post-extraction implant placement; single-tooth replacement.

Conflict of interest statement

The remaining authors declare no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

Figures

Figure 1.

Clinical pictures of all 20 implant-borne single crowns at 6 yrs. One implant (1M) showed minor recession of between 0.5 and 1 mm. Three implants yielded a step at the incisal edge (1A, 1D, 1L). Another implant (1I) demonstrated peri-implant mucositis.

Figure 2.

Oro-facial CBCT scans of all 20 implants. In 14 implants, the facial bone wall extended coronal to the platform, whereas 6 showed minor bone resorption at the platform level. One implant (1M) showed a very thin facial wall and was considered at risk.