Comparison of crestal bone loss and papilla fill after conventional and immediate implant placement: A 12 month clinical and radiographic prospective study

Akanksha Raj; Sweta Pradhan; Preetha Shetty; David Kadakampally; Neetha Shetty

doi:10.12688/f1000research.131411.2

Home Browse Comparison of crestal bone loss and papilla fill after conventional...

ALL Metrics

Views

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Research Article

Clinical trial

Revised

Comparison of crestal bone loss and papilla fill after conventional and immediate implant placement: A 12 month clinical and radiographic prospective study

[version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations]

Akanksha Raj¹, Sweta Pradhan¹, Preetha Shetty², David Kadakampally³, Neetha Shetty ⁴

Akanksha Raj¹, Sweta Pradhan¹, [...] Preetha Shetty², David Kadakampally³, Neetha Shetty ⁴

PUBLISHED 08 Jan 2024

Author details Author details

¹ Ex postgraduate student, Department of Periodontics, Manipal College of Dental Sciences, Mangalore, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Karnataka, 575001, India
² Associate Professor, Gulf Medical University, Ajman, United Arab Emirates
³ Associate professor, Department of Periodontics, Manipal College of Dental Sciences, Mangalore, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Karnataka, 575001, India
⁴ Professor and HOD, Department of Periodontics, Manipal College of Dental Sciences, Mangalore, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Karnataka, 575001, India

Akanksha Raj
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Sweta Pradhan
Roles: Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Writing – Review & Editing

Preetha Shetty
Roles: Investigation, Project Administration, Supervision, Validation

David Kadakampally
Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Resources, Validation

Neetha Shetty
Roles: Conceptualization, Project Administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

This article is included in the Manipal Academy of Higher Education gateway.

Abstract

Background

The problem of missing teeth persists in all age groups. The main objective of implants in dentistry is to provide a restoration that reconstructs the shape and restores esthetics and functions of edentulous areas. The objectives of this study are to compare the crestal bone level changes and papillary fill after placement of implants in fresh extraction socket, i.e. immediate implant placement, and healed extraction socket, i.e. delayed or conventional implant placement, and to assess other clinical parameters such as modified plaque index (mPI), modified gingival index (mGI) and gingival biotype in between the groups and within the groups.

Methods

18 patients were recruited in the study out of which 9 patients received implants as per immediate implant placement protocol (group 1) and 9 patients received implants as per conventional implant placement protocol (group 2). All patients were evaluated for gingival biotype, mPI and mGI and papillary fill was assessed as per Jemt’s papilla score as clinical parameters. Implant site was assessed for radiographic bone loss using Image J software. Statistical analysis was performed using independent t test, paired t test and chi square test.

Results

At the end of 1 year, results showed that crestal bone loss was seen more in the immediate group than the conventional group. Conventional implants showed better papillary fill than implants placed in fresh extraction sockets. Plaque scores were assessed as per modified plaque index, which showed better results in the conventional group. Modified gingival index was used to assess gingival status which showed better results in the immediate group one year later.

Conclusions

Findings from the study suggest that crestal bone loss was found to be increased in the immediate group than the conventional group and papillary fill was better in the conventional group than the immediate group.

Registration: CTRI (CTRI/2019/09/021340).

Keywords

Crestal bone, Immediate implants, Conventional Implants, Papillary fill.

Corresponding author: Neetha Shetty

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Copyright: © 2024 Raj A et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite: Raj A, Pradhan S, Shetty P et al. Comparison of crestal bone loss and papilla fill after conventional and immediate implant placement: A 12 month clinical and radiographic prospective study [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2024, 12:821 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.131411.2) First published: 13 Jul 2023, 12:821 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.131411.1) Latest published: 08 Jan 2024, 12:821 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.131411.2)

Revised Amendments from Version 1

The new version provides more detailed background information on the importance of the present study. The inclusion and exclusion criteria has been refined along with the methodology to provide more clarity. Additional assisting information has been added in the discussion to support the study.

See the authors' detailed response to the review by I-Ching Wang
See the authors' detailed response to the review by Zhen Fan

Introduction

The loss of a single tooth is thought to be a typical esthetic issue that could have psychological effects as well as non-physiological occlusion, that results due to tipping of the neighboring tooth and supra-eruption of the opposing tooth.¹^,² The main objective of implant therapy or modality is to provide a restoration that not only reconstructs the shape but also the esthetics and functions of edentulous areas. Clinical replacement of missing natural teeth with osseointegrated implants has been referred as one of the most notable developments in dentistry.³^,⁴

Placement of a single tooth implant can either be done in healed extraction socket/site as a conventional or delayed implant, or can be done in a fresh extraction socket/site as an immediate implant procedure.⁵^,⁶ Conventionally, implants are placed in healed extraction sites, allowing for a 3-6 month osseointegration period. Immediate implants, on the other hand, are inserted into fresh extraction sockets, reducing treatment time, preserving alveolar bone, and minimizing the edentulous period. This method is favorable because it helps to achieve optimum axial positioning of the implant by using the socket as a reference, shortens the edentulous period of three to six months, and requires fewer surgical visits. The success of single tooth replacement depends on factors such as implant survival, changes in marginal bone level, soft tissue measurements, prosthetic complications, and esthetic criteria. Papillary integrity is crucial, as it protects the adjacent periodontium. Peri-implant bone changes occur due to the creation of a biologic width, and initial bone loss can be attributed to various factors. This study aims to compare crestal bone levels and papillary fill in immediate and conventionally placed single tooth implants. Additionally, the study aims to assess various clinical parameters, including the modified plaque index (mPI), modified gingival index (mGI), and gingival biotype, both between the groups and within each group.⁶^‐¹⁵

Methods

Ethics and consent

This clinical trial was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee, Manipal College of Dental Sciences, Mangaluru (ref no. 18120). Initial approval was received on 20^th October 2018 and finalised on 12^th November 2018. Participants provided signed informed consent prior to the start of the study. This trial is also registered with CTRI (CTRI/2019/09/021340). Due to some technical issues with the initial registry, the trial was registered retrospectively. All procedures were conducted in compliance with the Helsinki Declaration 1975.

Procedure

Study participants who reported to the Department of Periodontology, Manipal College of Dental Sciences, Mangalore with the chief complaint of a missing single tooth were selected as participants in this study. The study was conducted from 1^st November 2018 to 1^st December 2020. Before the commencement of the study, the patients were informed of the clinical trial design and were required to sign their informed consent.

Sample size calculation

N = 2 {(Z_{1 - α / 2} + Z_{1 - β})}^{2} σ^{2} / d^{2}

Using the above formula, the sample size was calculated. Where Z (1-α/2) = Z score for the α power chosen. Z (1-β) = Z score for the power chosen. σ1 = standard deviation of group-1. σ = average standard deviation. d = the minimum difference between in the values with which make clinically relevant impact. With 5% alpha error, 90% power of the study and a clinically significant difference of 0.05 units, the required sample in each group is 9.

Randomization

The investigator (DK) was in charge of enrolling participants and allocating surgical procedures. The coin toss approach was used for randomization. The lead investigator (AR) performed all surgical operations. A masked investigator (NS) assessed the patients during the recall period and was blinded to all the surgical treatments that had been assigned.

Inclusion criteria for the patients

1. Age group of 18 to 55 years.
2. Systemically and periodontally healthy individuals.
3. Non-smokers.
4. Good oral hygiene.
5. Availability of follow up.
6. Healthy remaining dentition.
7. Adequate quality and quantity of bone.
8. Retained roots, fractured tooth or tooth advised for extraction due to periapical pathologic lesions.
9. Mandibular/maxillary, anterior/posterior single missing tooth.
10. If buccal cortical plate gets fractured during the procedure of immediate implant placement, the patient will be included in the conventional group.

Patients were excluded from the study if they:

1. Were pregnant at the time of inclusion.
2. Had parafunctional habits.
3. Patients who were not be willing to undergo the treatment.
4. Patients with aggressive periodontitis.
5. Defective extraction sockets.

A total of 18 patients with edentulous single tooth were included in the study. Patients of both sexes (7 females and 11 males) in the age range of 18 to 55 years were included in the study. Sex or gender do not impact the bone loss or gain in this study. The study was conducted in a prospective manner and was a comparative clinical trial involving two groups who had a missing single tooth. The patients were those in whom the implants were placed, and prosthesis was yet to be given.

All the implants used were from the MIS SEVEN implant system (see Figures 1 and 2). The Implant MIS seven system features an internal hexagon connection, ensuring an optimal fit between the implant and abutment, minimizing micro-movements, and reducing bone resorption. Its interior body is tapered for horizontal bone condensing, possesses sharper threads at the apex, and incorporates a dual thread design with micro-rings to enhance bone-to-implant contact. The surface undergoes sand-blasting and acid etching treatments, creating micro and nano-structures while eliminating various surface contaminants. Conventional abutments of either cement post or screw retained type were used for the prosthesis. In the 18 patients, 18 implants were placed; of which 12 were placed in the maxilla and 6 were placed in the mandible. All the patients were placed on regular maintenance, with all of them being recalled every 1 month, 6 months and 12 months. At every recall visit, oral hygiene instructions like tooth brushing and use of interdental aids were reinforced. The following clinical parameters were assessed at baseline, 6 months and 12 months after cementation of crown (Figures 3 and 4): 1. Jemt papilla index (JPI); 2. modified plaque index (mPI); 3. modified gingival index (mGI); 4. gingival biotype.

Figure 1. Operative images of implant placement in immediate group (group 1).

Figure 2. Operative images of implant placments in conventional group (group 2).

Figure 3. Papillary fill in the immediate implant placement group (group 1) at baseline, 6 months and 12 months.

Figure 4. Papillary fill in the conventional implant placement group (group 2) at baseline, 6 months and 12 months.

Jemt Index (Torsten Jemt, 1997)

This index was used to assess the size of the interproximal papillae adjacent to single implant restorations.¹⁶ The assessments were made from a reference line through the highest gingival curvatures of the crown restoration on the buccal side and the adjacent permanent tooth. Index scores were given from 0 to 4 based on the amount of papilla present (see Table 1).

Table 1. Jemt Index.

Index/score	Inference
0	Absence of papilla
1	Less than half of the height of the papilla present
2	At least half of the height of the papilla is present and not completely in harmony with adjacent papilla
3	The papilla fills up the entire proximal space and is in good harmony with the adjacent papillae
4	The papillae are hyperplastic and cover much of the single implant restoration and/or the adjacent tooth.

Modified Plaque Index (Mombelli et al. 1987)

A mouth mirror and William's periodontal probe were used, after air drying of the implant to assess for presence of plaque by running the probe along the margin. The surfaces examined were four gingival areas of the tooth i.e. distofacial, facial, mesiofacial and lingual surfaces.

Modified Gingival Index (Apse et al. 1991)

A mouth mirror was used to assess the modified gingival index by visual examination on of buccal and palatal/lingual surfaces, without probing.

Gingival biotype

After administration of local anesthesia, an endodontic file with a rubber stopper was penetrated into the facial soft tissue until it reached the bone. Measurements of gingival thickness directly on the midfacial area were obtained 2 mm below the free gingival margin. The thickness of facial soft tissue was equal to the distance between the rubber stopper and the tip of the endodontic file which was recorded by a digital caliper to the nearest 0.1 mm. It is categorized into thick or thin based on the amount of tissue thickness. If it was >1 mm, then it was considered as thick and if it was <1mm, it was considered as thin biotype.

Radiographic technique and measurements

Intraoral radiographs were taken for all patients at baseline, 6 months and 12 months after crown cementation. A standardized intra oral periapical radiograph (IOPAR) was taken for each selected site using the long cone paralleling technique using a film holder (RINN, XCP, Dentsply Illinois, USA). All radiographs were obtained utilizing an 'E' speed film (Kodak Carestream Health Inc., New York, USA) mount utilizing a mm grid scale as a standardized stent. These grid scale lines are printed vertically and horizontally at 1mm interval and with bold lines at 5 mm. The factors listed below were taken into account when calculating the degree of bone loss adjacent to the implants. To determine the vertical measures, the fixture abutment junction (FAJ) implant shoulder's horizontal measurement served as a guideline while image analysis software was used for the following radiographic parameters:

1. The most coronal portion of bone that contacts the implant and the vertical distance from the implant's shoulder (FAJ) were given the designation FAJ-I.
2. The most coronal portion of bone facing the neighbouring tooth and the vertical distance from the implant's shoulder were referred to as FAJ-Adj.
3. The soft tissue height was measured from the implant's shoulder to the coronal papilla level.
4. The contact point's vertical distance from the bone's crest was denoted as CP-Bone crest.

All radiographs were scanned using a scanner (HP Scanjet). All radiographic measurements were carried out by using software, Image J.¹⁷ Image J (Image processing and analysis in Java) is a pure Java image processing program which can measure area, mean, standard deviation, lengths, angles and min or max of selection or entire image. The Image J analysis was carried out as follows: the image was first transferred to the Image J analysis software, then using the straight-line option, a straight line was drawn to measure 1 mm grid and scale was set by converting distance into pixels. Once the distance was set, all the above-mentioned parameters were measured using the same tool and the amount of bone loss that has occurred was then calculated. For both the groups, the differences in the interproximal crestal bone height between 6 months and 12 months and from baseline and 12 months were calculated.¹⁸^‐²⁵

Statistical analysis

No implant was lost during the observational period. Two patients from the immediate group were lost at 12 months follow up because of COVID-19. Descriptive statistics, mean and standard deviation were calculated for continuous variables. Independent t-test was used to calculate distribution of implants in arches, mean age, crestal bone values i.e., FAJ- I, FAJ-Adj., soft tissue height and CP-BC between the groups. Intragroup comparison was done using paired t-test. Frequency and percentage were calculated for categorical variables. Chi square test was used to calculate intergroup variables in categorical values. Modified plaque index (mPI), modified gingival index (mGI), Jemt's papilla index (mesial & distal) and gingival biotype was calculated using Chi square test. A value of <0.05 is considered to be statistically significant. Microsoft Excel, SPSS version 1.52t and Image J software were used for analysis.

Results

Crestal bone loss values for group 1 (FAJ - I = 2.5 ± 0.3; FAJ - Adj. = 2.09 ± 0.21; STH = 3.98 ± 1.2 and CP - BC = 6.06 ± 0.99) and for group 2 (FAJ - I = 2.26 ± 0.62; FAJ - Adj. = 1.9 ± 1.03; STH = 4.75 ± 0.32 and CP - BC = 5.94 ± 0.85) at the end of 1 year showed that crestal bone loss was seen more in the immediate group than the conventional group⁶¹ (Tables 2-5). Papilla scores at the end of 1 year showed that distal papilla fill was better in the immediate group (with score 3 in 14.3% of patients) than the conventional group (with score 3 in 11.1% of patients) and mesially, scores were better in the conventional group (with score 3 in 22.2% of patients) than the immediate group where none of the patients had a score of 3 on the Jemt papilla index. So, conventional implants showed less bone loss and better papillary fill than implants placed in a fresh extraction socket. Plaque scores were assessed as per modified plaque index (mPI) which showed better results in the conventional group (score 1 in 88.9% of patients) than the immediate group (score 1 in 85.7% of patients). Modified gingival index (mGI) was used to assess gingival status which showed better results in the immediate group (100% of patients showed score 1) than the conventional group (88.9% patients showed score 1 and 11.1% of patients showed score 2) at the end of 1 year. Also, gingival biotype did not appear to affect changes in crestal bone level or papilla fill. Sex or gender of the patient does not impact the bone loss or gain in this study.

Table 2. The vertical distance from the shoulder of the implant (FAJ) and the most coronal part of bone contacting the implant (FAJ-I) between the groups at baseline, 6 months and 12 months.

FAJ-I	Groups	Mean ± SD	t	p-value
FAJ–I baseline	Group 1	2.03 ± 0.36	2.712	0.015*
FAJ–I baseline	Group 2	1.52 ± 0.43	2.712	0.015*
FAJ-I 6 months	Group 1	2.25 ± 0.28	1.573	0.144
FAJ-I 6 months	Group 2	1.89 ± 0.64	1.573	0.144
FAJ-I 12 months	Group 1	2.5 ± 0.3	1.038	0.319
FAJ-I 12 months	Group 2	2.26 ± 0.62	1.038	0.319
Difference between BL - 6 months	Group 1	13.48 ± 17.78	-1.057	0.306
Difference between BL - 6 months	Group 2	24.09 ± 24.32	-1.057	0.306
Difference between 6m - 12 m	Group 1	12.42 ± 12.7	-1.071	0.302
Difference between 6m - 12 m	Group 2	22.44 ± 21.96	-1.071	0.302
Difference between BL - 12 m	Group 1	29.38 ± 36.05	-1.206	0.248
Difference between BL - 12 m	Group 2	51.81 ± 37.57	-1.206	0.248

* p value is statistically significant.

Table 3. Intergroup comparison of FAJ-Adj. - at baseline, 6 months and 12 months.

FAJ-Adj.	Groups	Mean ± SD	t	p value
FAJ-Adj. baseline	Group 1	1.6 ± 0.33	0.184	0.858
FAJ-Adj. baseline	Group 2	1.54 ± 0.99	0.184	0.858
FAJ-Adj. 6 months	Group 1	1.94 ± 0.34	0.44	0.67
FAJ-Adj. 6 months	Group 2	1.78 ± 1.04	0.44	0.67
FAJ-Adj. 12 months	Group 1	2.09 ± 0.21	0.519	0.617
FAJ-Adj. 12 months	Group 2	1.9 ± 1.03	0.519	0.617
Difference between BL - 6 months	Group 1	24.34 ± 29.98	0.299	0.768
Difference between BL - 6 months	Group 2	20.64 ± 21.82	0.299	0.768
Difference between 6 m - 12 m	Group 1	6.66 ± 15.66	-0.625	0.542
Difference between 6 m - 12 m	Group 2	13.35 ± 24.6	-0.625	0.542
Difference between BL - 12 m	Group 1	36.17 ± 19.67	-0.117	0.909
Difference between BL - 12 m	Group 2	38.22 ± 42.66	-0.117	0.909

Table 4. Intergroup comparison of soft tissue height at baseline, 6 months and 12 months.

Soft tissue height	Groups	Mean ± SD	t	p value
Soft tissue height baseline	Group 1	4.48 ± 0.91	- 1.839	0.085
Soft tissue height baseline	Group 2	5.07 ± 0.31	- 1.839	0.085
Soft tissue height 6 months	Group 1	4.26 ± 0.87	- 1.963	0.067
Soft tissue height 6 months	Group 2	4.88 ± 0.34	- 1.963	0.067
Soft tissue height 12 months	Group 1	3.98 ± 1.2	- 1.835	0.088
Soft tissue height 12 months	Group 2	4.75 ± 0.32	- 1.835	0.088
Difference between BL - 6 months	Group 1	- 4.89 ± 1.8	-0.859	0.403
Difference between BL - 6 months	Group 2	-3.77 ± 3.46	-0.859	0.403
Difference between 6m - 12 m	Group 1	- 6.59 ± 8.4	-1.344	0.2
Difference between 6m - 12 m	Group 2	-2.67 ± 2.42	-1.344	0.2
Difference between BL - 12 m	Group 1	-11.66 ± 8.34	-1.623	0.15

Table 5. Intergroup comparison of distance between Contact point - Bone crest (CP - BC) at baseline, 6 months and 12 months.

CP - BC	Groups	Mean ± SD	t	p value
CP - BC baseline	Group 1	5.91 ± 0.84	2.281	0.037*
CP - BC baseline	Group 2	5.13 ± 0.59	2.281	0.037*
CP - BC 6 months	Group 1	6.1 ± 0.98	1.275	0.221
CP - BC 6 months	Group 2	5.62 ± 0.56	1.275	0.221
CP - BC 12 months	Group 1	6.06 ± 0.99	0.258	0.8
CP - BC 12 months	Group 2	5.94 ± 0.85	0.258	0.8
Difference between BL - 6 months	Group 1	3.08 ± 5.04	-1.42	0.187
Difference between BL - 6 months	Group 2	10.67 ± 15.22	-1.42	0.187
Difference between 6m - 12 m	Group 1	2.71 ± 3.15	- 0.651	0.525
Difference between 6m - 12 m	Group 2	5.73 ± 11.88	- 0.651	0.525
Difference between BL - 12 m	Group 1	6.13 ± 8.11	-1.619	0.128
Difference between BL - 12 m	Group 2	16.37 ± 15.03	-1.619	0.128

* p value is statistically significant.

Discussion

A crucial indicator for the health of an implant is the quality of the crestal bone. Its preservation is considered an essential indicator for the success of dental implants. Also, the height of the papillae that is related to the interproximal crestal bone contributes to the success of the implant. Thus, papillae preservation height and crestal bone is paramount for fruitful success of the outcome of an implant. Long term studies on the volume of crestal bone loss in the early healing phase, i.e., within one year, generally observe 1.5 mm in the first year, followed by 0.2 mm annually.²⁶ This could be because of occlusal loading forces during mastication and the presence of micro gaps between the implant and placement of the abutment at or apical to the crest, which acts as a plaque retentive area and leads to bone loss. When crestal bone loss occurs, the soft tissue overlying the crestal bone i.e. the papillae would also recede and will lead to plaque accumulation and an unaesthetic appearance. Early implant failure may occur due to the lack of osseointegration occurring within a few weeks to months. Factors contributing to early failure include bone necrosis, bacterial infection, surgical trauma, insufficient initial stability, and premature occlusal loading. In contrast, late failure occurs after a prolonged period of functional loading and is typically associated with infection and excessive mechanical loading.²⁷

In this study, a total of 18 patients were recruited. 9 patients received implants as per immediate implant placement protocol (group 1) and 9 patients received implants as per conventional or delayed implant placement protocol (group 2). Astrand et al.²⁸ used two different implant systems (AstraTech and Branemark system) and showed that there was a difference in the pattern of bone remodeling between the implant systems. This can be attributed to the macro and micro characteristics that vary from one system to another. In this study, we have used the MIS SEVEN implant system which is self-tapping, surface treated and sand blasted to increase surface area, creating both micro and Nano-structures and eliminating surface contaminants. Their geometric design includes dual threads, spiral channels stemming from the apex, micro rings on the implant neck and a variable thread thickness along the implant. The combination of sandblasting and acid etching introduces macro and nano-structures which significantly increases surface area of the implant body for optimal osseointegration. The roughened surface improves bone adhesion, as well as the proliferation and differentiation of osteoblasts. Sand blasted and acid etched surfaces have been substantially proven to maximize the Bone-to-Implant contact, achieving immediate and long lasting osseointegration. It is advantageous to use the same implant system across all patients in the study, as different systems can show different amounts of bone loss. For all the patients, delayed loading protocol was followed, and for all the implants placed, the crown was given after a waiting period of 3-4 months for mandible and 6 months for maxilla.²⁹^,³⁰

The bone quality varies in maxilla and mandible and in both anterior and posterior regions. For all the patients, delayed loading protocol was followed, and for all the implants placed, crown was given after waiting period of 3-4 months for mandible and 6 months for maxilla. To avoid the confounding effect of occlusal loading on crestal bone resorption, all patients were given the superstructure according to delayed loading protocol and thus, standardizing the loading protocol. The pattern of bone loss after implant placement varies in maxilla and mandible patients, owing to the difference in the density of the bone as it is more cancellous in the maxilla as compared to the mandible. Longitudinal studies have shown a mean difference of 0.23 mm bone loss for implants placed in the maxilla and mandible.³¹^,³²

Excessive surgical trauma and thermal injury may lead to thermal necrosis and fibrous encapsulation of implants. Eriksson and Alberktsson³³ reported that the critical temperature for implant site preparation was 47°C for 1 minute or 40°C for 7 minutes. With overheating, the chance of implant failure increases. In this study, adequate internal irrigation was used to keep temperature of bone to minimum. Sharp drills were used, and osteotomy was performed in a staged manner without jumping the drilling sequence.

The height of the bone around the implant has been measured using a variety of techniques. Compared to conventional methods (using magnifying glass), the computerized method is considered to be superior due to higher accuracy. One of these computerized methods is using Image J analysis software, which has high accuracy and precision along with specificity and sensitivity. Grid scale also provides reference distance for the image analysis software so that magnification error is minimized.³⁴^‐³⁸

In this study, all the radiographs were taken at baseline, 6 months and 12 months after crown cementation and were taken using paralleling cone technique with grid overlay and analyzed using Image J analysis. All the radiographs were taken using the same exposure settings which are on the X-ray machine and hence, the standardization was maintained.

The present study showed that values of FAJ-I, FAJ- Adj., CP-BC were higher for group 1 than group 2, indicating that higher crestal bone loss was observed in the immediate group (FAJ-I = 2.5 ± 0.3; FAJ-Adj., = 2.09 ± 0.21; CP-BC = 6.06 ± 0.99) than the conventional group (FAJ-I = 2.26 ± 0.62; FAJ- Adj., = 1.9 ± 1.03; CP-BC = 5.94 ± 0.85) and higher soft tissue height values were seen for group 2 (STH = 4.75 ± 0.32) than group 1 (STH = 3.98 ± 1.2), which shows that the conventional group produced better results than the immediate group. Sasi Kumar et al.³⁹ did a study to measure bone loss in conventional and immediate implant placement and stated that bone loss was seen more in the conventional group (1.28 ± 0.24) than the immediate group (1.10 ± 0.39) mm. This is in contrast to the findings in our study; this could be due to the use of autogenous bone chips harvested from the surroundings, which may have aided in better bone formation in immediate group. Tabrizi et al.⁴⁰ demonstrated that the amount of bone loss is significantly (P > 0.05) more in group 2, i.e. conventional (1.6 ± 0.20), than group 1, i.e. immediate, (1.05 ± 0.17) at the 6 month follow up; hence, their results were in contrast to our study. Heinemann et al.⁴¹ on the other hand concluded that there was a non-significant difference between group 1 and group 2 in approximal bone level change during the first year, which was similar with our study. In a study done by Moustafa et al.,⁴² the immediate loading group showed higher bone loss than the conventional loading group at the end of the 3 year follow up period, which is similar to our findings where the conventional group showed lesser bone loss when compared to the immediate group. Plaque accumulation has been considered as one of the most important causes for crestal bone resorption.⁴³ Formation of plaque on an implant surface is influenced by surface characteristics of the dental implant and abutment material used.⁴⁴

Papilla assessment was done immediately on the day of crown cementation, both in maxillary and mandibular dental implants. The crown cementation was done at 3 months in all the patients, thus, standardizing the papillary assessments. The papillary fill around mesial and distal sides of restored dental implants were assessed clinically by scoring papilla from 0 to 4 as per Jemt's papilla index and by digitizing the images at baseline, 6 months and 12 months. In this study, results showed that in the conventional group, papilla scores (mesially) at 12 months showed complete papilla fill in 22.2% of cases and no complete papillary fill was seen in the immediate group. This could be because 2 patients were lost for 12 month follow up from the immediate group due to COVID-19, which is a limitation of our study. Distally, on evaluating Jemt's papilla score, complete papillary fill was seen in 14.3% of patients in the immediate group and 11.1% in the conventional group. These findings were supported by a study done by Grossberg et al. (2001),⁴⁵ in which four patients out of twelve showed complete papilla fill in between the implants. Also, Nariman et al. (2018)’s⁴⁶ study found that both mesially and distally, the conventional group (Mesial side = 1.78 and distal side = 1.89) showed better papilla fill than the immediate group (mesial side = 1.20 and distal side = 1.30) which is in contrast to our study. Lee et al. (2005)⁴⁷ showed that the soft tissue height in between two adjacent implants was 3.3 ± 0.5 mm. This is in accordance with the study done by Rushad Hosi et al.,⁴⁶ who also stated that inflammation can lead to false assessment of papillary fill.

The patients in the current study were followed at 6 months and 12 months after crown cementation. The modified plaque and modified gingival index scores (mPI and mGI) were used to assess peri-implant mucosal condition at baseline (i.e. on the day of crown cementation), at 6 months and 12 months. In this study, there was no statistically significant mean plaque score difference found between groups at baseline, 6 months and 12 months. This shows that the patients maintained good oral hygiene at 6 months and gradually decreased at follow up time. This is in accordance with Weber HP et al. (2000)⁴⁸ and Renvert S et al. (2009).⁴⁹

Biologic width and biotype are said to influence the peri implant mucosa. In the present study, biotype was divided into two categories: thick and thin. Gingival biotype influences facial marginal gingival level rather than interproximal papillary levels adjacent to dental implants. It was previously reported that peri implant biotype does not influence the peri-implant papilla fill but has an influence on the peri-implant marginal mucosa. A thin biotype is said to lead to increased risk of recession. In the present study too, gingival biotype did not seem to influence the papilla fill at any time period as in other studies.²⁴^,⁵⁰^‐⁵⁷

Based on existing evidence, there is no statistically significant distinction in terms of implant survival or complications between immediate and delayed implant placement. Nevertheless, in specific situations, such as patients with concurrent dental and medical comorbidities, delayed placement may present a marginal survival advantage.⁵⁸^‐⁶⁰ There is a clear necessity for randomized controlled trials to assess the optimal timing for dental implant placement following tooth extractions.

A limitation of this study is the smaller sample size. Two patients were lost for 12 months follow up due to COVID-19. The strengths of this study include That the software used in the study to measure bone loss was more accurate than the other graphical methods that had been used in other studies. Additionally, the standardization of implant size and implant system were done in the present study to minimize biasing.

Conclusion

In consideration of the study's shortcomings, it can be said that:

• Conventionally placed implants showed less bone loss and better papillary fill than implants placed immediately into fresh extraction sockets at the end of 1 year.
• Gingival biotype had no significant influence with respect to the papilla fill and crestal bone loss irrespective of the technique of implant placement at the end of 1 year.
• Regardless of the technique of implant placement, there was no bone loss after cementation of crown at the end of 1 year.
• In practical terms, clinicians should carefully outweigh the benefits of immediate implant placement in comparison to the elevated risks of crestal bone loss and diminished papillary fill.
• Further high-quality randomized trials are required to assess the impact of immediate versus delayed implant placement on implant survival. The research should extend to include patient-valued outcomes such as aesthetics, function, and psychological wellbeing. Additionally, there is a need for qualitative evidence to explore the experiences and perspectives of dental implant recipients.

Patients’ declaration of consent

The authors declare that they have obtained all necessary consent papers from the patients. The patients have signed the form and agreed for their pictures and other clinical information to be published. The names and identities of the patients will remain anonymous.

Authors’ contributions

All the authors have equal contribution to this research in manuscript preparation, data collection and interpretation.

Data availability

Underlying data

figshare: Underlying data. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.21687209.v1.⁶¹

This project contains the underlying following data:

• Data file 1: Master Chart for Immediate implants placement group
• Data file 2: Crestal Bone level for immediate implants group
• Data file 3: Master Chart for Conventional implants placement group
• Data file 4: Crestal Bone level for conventional implants group

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0).

Reporting guidelines

CONSORT checklist and flow diagram for ‘Comparison of crestal bone loss and papilla fill after conventional and immediate implant placement: A 12 month clinical and radiographic prospective study’. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.22179419

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Manipal College of Dental Sciences, Mangalore for all the support.

References

1. Mish CE: Contemporary implant dentistry – third edition.
2. Avivi-Arber L, Zarb GA: Clinical effectiveness of implant- supported single tooth replacement: The Toronto stydy. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants. 1996; 11: 311–321.
3. Lindhe J: Clinical periodontology and implant dentistry. Fifth edition.
4. Jung RE, Pietrursson BE, Glauser R, et al.: A systemic review of the 5- year survival and complication rates of implant-supported single crowns. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 2008; 19: 119–130. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
5. Weber HP, Crohin CC, Fiorellini JP: A five – year prospective clinical and radiographic study of non-submerged dental implants. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 19, 2000; 11: 144–153. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
6. Anders Ekfeltdt LDS, Dr O, Gunnar E, et al.: Clinical evaluation of single tooth restorations supported by osseointegated implants: A retrospective study. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants. 1994; 9: 179–183
7. Myron N: Implant therapy. 2nd ed. Quintessence Publishing.
8. Esposito M, Grusovin MG, Polyzos IP, et al.: Timing of implant placement after tooth extraction: immediate, immediate-delayed or delayed implants? A Cochrane systematic review. Eur. J. Oral Implantol. 2010 Autumn; 3(3): 189–205. PubMed Abstract
9. Simonis P, Dufour T, Tenenbaum H: Long-term implant survival and success: a 10-16-year follow-up of non-submerged dental implants. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 2010 Jul; 21(7): 772–777. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
10. Lambodharan R, Balaji VR: Interdental papilla regeneration around implants: A novel window technique (2 years follow-up). J. Pharm. Bioallied Sci. 2015; 7(Suppl 2): 815–S818. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
11. Tarnow DP, Magner AW, Fletcher P: The Effect of the Distance From the Contact Point to the Crest of Bone on the Presence or Absence of the Interproximal Dental Papilla. J. Periodontol. 1992; 63: 995–996. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
12. Panaite D, Klokkevold P, Charles A: The peri-implant papilla: realities on papilla preservation and reformation. J. Calif. Dent. Assoc. 2008 Nov; 36(11): 851–867. Retraction in: Felsenfeld AL, Carney KK. J Calif Dent Assoc. 2009 Feb;37(2):71. PubMed Abstract
13. Hermann JS, Buser D, Schenk RK, et al.: Biologic width around titanium implants. A physiologically formed and stable dimension over time. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 2000 Feb; 11(1):1–11. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
14. John V, Shin D, Marlow A, et al.: Peri-Implant Bone Loss and Peri-Implantitis: A Report of three cases and review of the literature. Shibili JA, editor. Case Rep. Dent. 2016; 2016: 2941714. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
15. Schwartz F, Derks J, Monje A, et al.: Peri-implantitis. J. Periodontol. 2018; 89(supple 1): S267–S290. Publisher Full Text
16. Henry PJ, Laney WR, Jemt T, et al.: Osseointegrated implants for single-tooth replacement: a prospective 5-year multicenter study. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants. 1996 Jul-Aug; 11(4): 450–455. PubMed Abstract
17. Eriksson E, Brånemark PI: Osseointegration from the perspective of the plastic surgeon. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 1994 Mar; 93(3): 626–637. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
18. Albrektsson TO, Johansson CB, Sennerby L: Biological aspects of implant dentistry: osseointegration. Periodontology. 1994 Feb; 4(4): 58–73. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
19. Mavrogenis AF, Dimitriou R, Parvizi J, et al.: Biology of implant osseointegration. J. Musculoskelet. Neuronal Interact. 2009 Apr-Jun; 9(2): 61–71. PubMed Abstract
20. Branemark P-I, Zarb GA, Albrektsson T, et al.: Tissue-Integrated Prostheses. Osseointegration in Clinical Dentistry. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. March 1986; 77(3): 496–497. Publisher Full Text
21. Zetu L, Wang HL: Management of inter-dental/inter-implant papilla. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2005 Jul; 32(7): 831–839. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
22. Chow YC, Wang HL: Factors and techniques influencing peri-implant papillae. Implant. Dent. 2010 Jun; 19(3): 208–219. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
23. Lung H, Liao SC, Yuan K, et al.: Interdental and inter-implant papilla: Literature review and management. J. Taiwan Acad. Periodontol. 2012; 17: 99–107.
24. Jemt T: Regeneration of gingival papillae after single-implant treatment. Int. J. Periodontics Restorative Dent. 1997 Aug; 17(4): 326–333. PubMed Abstract
25. Ryser MR, Block MS, Mercante DE: Correlation of papilla to crestal bone levels around single tooth implants in immediate or delayed crown protocols. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2005 Aug; 63(8): 1184–1195. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
26. Mateos L, Lazaro P, Herrero F, et al.: Periodontal surgical techniques applied to implantology.2003; 15: 57–68.
27. Raikar S, Talukdar P, Kumari S, et al.: Factors Affecting the Survival Rate of Dental Implants: A Retrospective Study. J. Int. Soc. Prev. Community Dent. 2017; 7(6): 351–355. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
28. Astrand P, Engquist B, Dahlgren S, et al.: Astra Tech and Brånemark system implants: a 5-year prospective study of marginal bone reactions. Clin. Oral Implants. Res. 2004 Aug; 15(4): 413–420. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
29. Barzilay I, Graser GN, Iranpour B, et al.: Immediate implantation of a pure titanium implant into an extraction socket: report of a pilot procedure. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants. 1991 Fall; 6(3): 277–284. PubMed Abstract
30. Becker W, Lynch SE, Lekholm U, et al.: A comparison of ePTFE membranes alone or in combination with platelet-derived growth factors and insulin-like growth factor-I or demineralized freeze-dried bone in promoting bone formation around immediate extraction socket implants. J. Periodontol. 1992 Nov; 63(11): 929–940. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
31. Gher ME, Quintero G, Assad D, et al.: Bone grafting and guided bone regeneration for immediate dental implants in humans. J. Periodontol. 1994 Sep; 65(9): 881–891. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
32. Rosenquist B, Grenthe B: Immediate placement of implants into extraction sockets: implant survival. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants. 1996 Mar-Apr; 11(2): 205–209. PubMed Abstract
33. Eriksson RA, Albrektsson T: The effect of heat on bone regeneration: An experimental study in the rabbit using the bone growth chamber. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. Off. J. Am. Assoc. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 1984; 42: 705–711. Publisher Full Text
34. Schou S, Holmstrup P, Stoltze K, et al.: Probing around implants and teeth with healthy or inflamed peri-implant mucosa/gingiva. A histologic comparison in cynomolgus monkeys (Macaca fascicularis). Clin. Oral Implants Res. 2002 Apr; 13(2): 113–126. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
35. Schropp L, Wenzel A, Kostopoulos L, et al.: Bone healing and soft tissue contour changes following single-tooth extraction: a clinical and radiographic 12-month prospective study. Int. J. Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2003 Aug; 23(4): 313–323. PubMed Abstract
36. Degidi M, Novaes AB Jr, Nardi D, et al.: Outcome analysis of immediately placed, immediately restored implants in the esthetic area: the clinical relevance of different interimplant distances. J. Periodontol. 2008 Jun; 79(6): 1056–1061. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
37. Guida L, Lezzi G, Annunziata M, et al.: Immediate placement and loading of dental dental implants: A human histological case report. Journal of Periodontal. 2008; 79: 575–581. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
38. Tortamano P, Camargo LO, Bello-Silva MS, et al.: Immediate implant placement and restoration in the esthetic zone: a prospective study with 18 months of follow-up. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants. 2010 Mar-Apr; 25(2): 345–350. PubMed Abstract
39. Sasi Kumar PK, Abinaya R, Sugumari E, et al.: Clinical and Radiographic Evaluation of Immediate and Delayed Single-tooth Implant Placement: An 18-month Follow-up Study. J. Periodontol. Implant. Dent. 2013; 5(2): 41–54. Publisher Full Text
40. Tabrizi R, Pourdanesh F, Zare S, et al.: Do Angulated Implants Increase the Amount of Bone Loss Around Implants in the Anterior Maxilla? J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. Off. J. Am. Assoc. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2013; 71: 272–277. Publisher Full Text
41. Heinemann F, Biffar R, Schwahn C, et al.: Bone level changes in dental implants with platform-switched design after immediate and delayed placement in the maxilla. Int. J. Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2013 May-Jun; 33(3): 365–372. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
42. Ekfeldt A, Carlsson GE, Börjesson G: Clinical evaluation of single-tooth restorations supported by osseointegrated implants: a retrospective study. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants. 1994 Mar-Apr; 9(2): 179–183. PubMed Abstract
43. De Smet E, Van Steen D, Berghe MQ, et al.: The influence of plaque or excessive loading on marginal soft and hard tissue reaction around implants; A review of literature and experience. Int. J. Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2001; 21: 381–393. PubMed Abstract
44. Gupta S, Sabharwal R, Nazeer J, et al.: Platform switching technique and crestal bone loss around the dental implants: A systematic review. Ann. Afr. Med. 2019 Jan-Mar; 18(1): 1–6. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
45. Grossberg DE: Interimplant papilla reconstruction: assessment of soft tissue changes and results of 12 consecutive cases. J. Periodontol. 2001 Jul; 72(7): 958–962. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
46. Nariman RH, Pai UY, Soumya MK, et al.: A clinical assessment of the volume of interproximal papilla after definitive prosthesis around immediate and delayed loading implants placed in the maxillary esthetic zone: An in vivo study. J. Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2018 Apr-Jun; 18(2): 168–173. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
47. Lee EJ, Meraw SJ, Oh TJ, et al.: Comparative histologic analysis of coronally advanced flap with and without collagen membrane for root coverage. J. Periodontol. 2002; 73(7): 779–788. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
48. Gerber JA, Tan WC, Balmer TE, et al.: Bleeding on probing and pocket probing depth in relation to probing pressure and mucosal health around oral implants. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 2009; 20: 75–78. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
49. Renvert S, Samuelsson E, Lindahl C, et al.: Mechanical non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis: a double-blind randomized longitudinal clinical study. I: clinical results. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2009 Jul; 36(7): 604–609. Erratum in: J Clin Periodontol. 2009 Dec; 36(12):1076. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
50. Laney WR, Jemt T, Harris D, et al.: Osseointegrated implants for single-tooth replacement: progress report from a multicenter prospective study after 3 years. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants. 1994 Jan-Feb; 9(1): 49–54. PubMed Abstract
51. Henry PJ, Laney WR, Jemt T, et al.: Osseointegrated implants for single tooth replacement: A prospective 5 – year multicentre Study. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants. 1996; 11: 450–455. PubMed Abstract
52. Scheller H, Urgell P, Kultje C, et al.: A 5-year multicentre study on implant-supported single crown restorations. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants. 1998; 13: 212–218. PubMed Abstract
53. Tarnow DP, Cho SC, Wallace SS: The effect of inter-implant distance on the height of inter-implant bone crest. J. Periodontol. 2000 Apr; 71(4): 546–549. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
54. Gastaldo JF, Cury PR, Sendyk WR: Effect of the vertical and horizontal distances between adjacent implants and between a tooth and an implant on the incidence of interproximal papilla. J. Periodontol. 2004 Sep; 75(9): 1242–1246. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
55. Meijndert CM, Raghoebar GM, Meijndert L, et al.: Single implants in the aesthetic region preceded by local ridge augmentation; a 10-year randomized controlled trial. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 2017 Apr; 28(4): 388–395. Epub 2016 Feb 26. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
56. Misch CE, Misch-Dietsh F, Silc J, et al.: Posterior implant single-tooth replacement and status of adjacent teeth during a 10-year period: a retrospective report. J. Periodontol. 2008 Dec; 79(12): 2378–2382. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
57. Kim YK, Kim SG, Yun PY, et al.: Prognosis of single molar implants: a retrospective study. Int. J. Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2010 Aug; 30(4): 401–407. PubMed Abstract
58. Cosyn J, De Lat L, Seyssens L, et al.: The effectiveness of immediate implant placement for single tooth replacement compared to delayed implant placement: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2019 Jun; 46: 224–241. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
59. Patel R, Ucer C, Wright S, et al.: Differences in dental implant survival between immediate vs. delayed placement: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Dent. J (Basel). 2023 Sep 15; 11(9): 218. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
60. Mello CC, Lemos CA, Verri FR, et al.: Immediate implant placement into fresh extraction sockets versus delayed implants into healed sockets: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2017 Sep 1; 46(9): 1162–1177. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
61. Raj A, Pradhan S, Dr Shetty N : Underlying data. [Dataset]. figshare. 2022. Publisher Full Text

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2

VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 13 Jul 2023

Author details Author details

Akanksha Raj
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Sweta Pradhan
Roles: Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Writing – Review & Editing

Preetha Shetty
Roles: Investigation, Project Administration, Supervision, Validation

David Kadakampally
Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Resources, Validation

Neetha Shetty
Roles: Conceptualization, Project Administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Article Versions (2)

version 2

Revised

Published: 08 Jan 2024, 12:821

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.131411.2

version 1

Published: 13 Jul 2023, 12:821

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.131411.1

© 2024 Raj A et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Download

Export To

metrics

	Views	Downloads
F1000Research	-	-
PubMed Central Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.	-	-

Citations

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

Raj A, Pradhan S, Shetty P et al. Comparison of crestal bone loss and papilla fill after conventional and immediate implant placement: A 12 month clinical and radiographic prospective study [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2024, 12:821 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.131411.2)

NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Current Reviewer Status: ?

Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE

ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 13 Jul 2023

Views

Reviewer Report 15 Dec 2023

I-Ching Wang, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.144252.r225045

Dear Authors,
It was suggested that in the results section of the abstract should be more detailed to support the conclusion. Please see the comments below.

Methods and Material:

Please provide more

Dear Authors,
It was suggested that in the results section of the abstract should be more detailed to support the conclusion. Please see the comments below.

Methods and Material:

Please provide more details of the power calculation including the assumed standard deviation and the effect size. Please clarify if the clinically significant difference in this manuscript was defined as 0.05
Please clarify the inclusion criteria for the extraction sockets. Were the defective sockets all included?
Please clarify what standardized position on the soft tissue was measured using an endodontic file.
Please clarify if a standardized stent for the periapical radiographs was used.

Conclusions:
It should be added the conclusions of observation were at 1 year.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

No
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

I cannot comment. A qualified statistician is required.
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

No
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Implantology and Periodontology

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 11 Jan 2024

Neetha Shetty, Professor and HOD, Department of Periodontics, Manipal College of Dental Sciences, Mangalore, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, 575001, India

11 Jan 2024

Author Response
1. The sample size has been provided. The clinically significant difference has been clarified.
2. Defective sockets were excluded, and thus has been added in the exclusion criteria.
... Continue reading
The sample size has been provided. The clinically significant difference has been clarified.

Defective sockets were excluded, and thus has been added in the exclusion criteria.

The position of the file has been clarified.

Standardised stent was used for radiograph and is clarified.
The sample size has been provided. The clinically significant difference has been clarified.

Defective sockets were excluded, and thus has been added in the exclusion criteria.

The position of the file has been clarified.

Standardised stent was used for radiograph and is clarified.
Competing Interests: NIL Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 11 Jan 2024

Neetha Shetty, Professor and HOD, Department of Periodontics, Manipal College of Dental Sciences, Mangalore, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, 575001, India

11 Jan 2024

Author Response
1. The sample size has been provided. The clinically significant difference has been clarified.
2. Defective sockets were excluded, and thus has been added in the exclusion criteria.
... Continue reading
The sample size has been provided. The clinically significant difference has been clarified.

Defective sockets were excluded, and thus has been added in the exclusion criteria.

The position of the file has been clarified.

Standardised stent was used for radiograph and is clarified.
The sample size has been provided. The clinically significant difference has been clarified.

Defective sockets were excluded, and thus has been added in the exclusion criteria.

The position of the file has been clarified.

Standardised stent was used for radiograph and is clarified.
Competing Interests: NIL Close
Report a concern

Views

Reviewer Report 13 Dec 2023

Zhen Fan, Tongji University, Shanghai, Shanghai, China

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.144252.r208643

The overall research design of the article is reasonable, and the corresponding chapters are also divided into subheadings, which are clear. The following are some suggestions for reference:

1. The introduction may add more detailed background information to give readers a better understanding of the background and importance of the study.

2. Objectives of study can be more clearly defined, such as "compare the effects of immediate and delayed implant on the clinical effects of patients (such as long-term bone mass changes, dental health, aesthetic effects, etc.)."

3. More details can be provided for the method of study, such as the choice of implant type, implant system, and the reason for the surgical methods.

4. Will the inclusion in the criteria of extraction of teeth caused by periapical diseases affect the effect of immediate implant?

5. Given that there are many clinical studies on the same subject whose final conclusions are not necessarily consistent, many of the influencing factors (such as the implant system used, the lacking teeth are in the upper or lower jaw, etc.) can analyze the reasons for their inconsistency. This has already been presented in the text, but we suggest a deeper exploration of possible causes and potential clinical significance, rather than just listing the consistent or inconsistent facts. After analyzing these different factors, the need for limiting the conclusions should also be considered.

6.In the conclusion and discussion, the clinical and practical significance of the corresponding findings could be written and divided more clearly, and we suggest more specific data added to make the results more intuitive.

7. The research aim in this paper is comparing immediate implant and delayed implant, but one of the studies mentioned in the discussion part is about immediate loading, so it is doubtful whether it is comparable with the research results in this paper.

8. In this paper, the conclusion of sticking crown and gingival biotype does not affect the treatment results, but according to past studies, soft tissue should have certain influence on bone resorption. More literatures searching and discussion is needed.

9. In the conclusion part, we can consider further exploring the specific impact of these findings on clinical practice and the future research direction.

10. There are many ancient documents in the cited documents. Besides some classic documents, it is necessary to add more recent documents related to the research results of this paper, and the ones in recent 3 years are preferred.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

I cannot comment. A qualified statistician is required.
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Partly
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: dental implantation

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 11 Jan 2024

Neetha Shetty, Professor and HOD, Department of Periodontics, Manipal College of Dental Sciences, Mangalore, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, 575001, India

11 Jan 2024

Author Response
1. More detailed background information has been added in the introduction to understand the importance of this study.
2. The objective of the study is clearly defined.
3. More
... Continue reading
More detailed background information has been added in the introduction to understand the importance of this study.

The objective of the study is clearly defined.

More details have been provided on the choice of implant system.

Peri-apical lesions do not affect the effect of immediate implant placements. Hence, they are included in the study.

More detailed explanation has been provided on the influencing factors.

The clinical and practical significance is more clearly defined.

Since immediate loading is one of the influencing factors, it seems justified to include the study on immediate loading.

The data ad been modified to provide better understanding.

Clinical significance and future directions has been added in the conclusion.

Recent references have been added.
More detailed background information has been added in the introduction to understand the importance of this study.

The objective of the study is clearly defined.

More details have been provided on the choice of implant system.

Peri-apical lesions do not affect the effect of immediate implant placements. Hence, they are included in the study.

More detailed explanation has been provided on the influencing factors.

The clinical and practical significance is more clearly defined.

Since immediate loading is one of the influencing factors, it seems justified to include the study on immediate loading.

The data ad been modified to provide better understanding.

Clinical significance and future directions has been added in the conclusion.

Recent references have been added.
Competing Interests: NIL Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 11 Jan 2024

Neetha Shetty, Professor and HOD, Department of Periodontics, Manipal College of Dental Sciences, Mangalore, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, 575001, India

11 Jan 2024

Author Response
1. More detailed background information has been added in the introduction to understand the importance of this study.
2. The objective of the study is clearly defined.
3. More
... Continue reading
More detailed background information has been added in the introduction to understand the importance of this study.

The objective of the study is clearly defined.

More details have been provided on the choice of implant system.

Peri-apical lesions do not affect the effect of immediate implant placements. Hence, they are included in the study.

More detailed explanation has been provided on the influencing factors.

The clinical and practical significance is more clearly defined.

Since immediate loading is one of the influencing factors, it seems justified to include the study on immediate loading.

The data ad been modified to provide better understanding.

Clinical significance and future directions has been added in the conclusion.

Recent references have been added.
More detailed background information has been added in the introduction to understand the importance of this study.

The objective of the study is clearly defined.

More details have been provided on the choice of implant system.

Peri-apical lesions do not affect the effect of immediate implant placements. Hence, they are included in the study.

More detailed explanation has been provided on the influencing factors.

The clinical and practical significance is more clearly defined.

Since immediate loading is one of the influencing factors, it seems justified to include the study on immediate loading.

The data ad been modified to provide better understanding.

Clinical significance and future directions has been added in the conclusion.

Recent references have been added.
Competing Interests: NIL Close
Report a concern

Views

Reviewer Report 18 Oct 2023

Chandni Batra, Indiana University, New Albany, Indiana, USA

Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.144252.r194369

The article under review compares crestal bone loss and papilla fill over 12 years after conventional and immediate implant placement. Evaluations included papilla fill or soft tissue height, modified plaque and gingival index, gingival phenotype and radiographic bone loss. The study results demonstrated better papilla fill and crestal bone preservation with no statistical differences between the groups. Overall, the study is well designed and article well written. It would be beneficial to include the following and make following edits:

Include the aim of the study and a sentence on what makes this study different from previously completed similar studies in the introduction.
Inclusion criteria mentions good oral hygiene - how was this defined? (Plaque score/gingival score?)
Inclusion criteria mentions adequate quality/quantity of bone - how was this defined?
Terminology gingival biotype can be changed to gingival phenotype as per the 2017 classification system¹.
Terminology Biologic width can be changed to supracrestal attachment as per 2017 classification system¹.
Please mention in the results (text) whether the measured differences were significant or not significant for better understanding by readers.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

References

1. Caton JG, Armitage G, Berglundh T, Chapple ILC, et al.: A new classification scheme for periodontal and peri-implant diseases and conditions - Introduction and key changes from the 1999 classification.J Clin Periodontol. 2018; 45 Suppl 20: S1-S8 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Periodontology and Implant Dentistry

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2

VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 13 Jul 2023

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1	2	3
Version 2 (revision) 08 Jan 24
Version 1 13 Jul 23	read	read	read

Chandni Batra, Indiana University, New Albany, USA
Zhen Fan, Tongji University, Shanghai, China
I-Ching Wang, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, USA

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Browse by related subjects

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

10 Views

15 Dec 2023 | for Version 1

I-Ching Wang, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA

10 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved With Reservations

Dear Authors,
It was suggested that in the results section of the abstract should be more detailed to support the conclusion. Please see the comments below.

Methods and Material:

Please provide more details of the power calculation including the assumed standard deviation and the effect size. Please clarify if the clinically significant difference in this manuscript was defined as 0.05
Please clarify the inclusion criteria for the extraction sockets. Were the defective sockets all included?
Please clarify what standardized position on the soft tissue was measured using an endodontic file.
Please clarify if a standardized stent for the periapical radiographs was used.

Conclusions:
It should be added the conclusions of observation were at 1 year.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

No
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

I cannot comment. A qualified statistician is required.
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

No
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Implantology and Periodontology

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

9 Views

13 Dec 2023 | for Version 1

Zhen Fan, Tongji University, Shanghai, Shanghai, China

9 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved With Reservations

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

I cannot comment. A qualified statistician is required.
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Partly
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

dental implantation

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

11 Jan 2024

Neetha Shetty, Professor and HOD, Department of Periodontics, Manipal College of Dental Sciences, Mangalore, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, 575001, India

More detailed background information has been added in the introduction to understand the importance of this study.
The objective of the study is clearly defined.
More details have been provided on the choice of implant system.
Peri-apical lesions do not affect the effect of immediate implant placements. Hence, they are included in the study.
More detailed explanation has been provided on the influencing factors.
The clinical and practical significance is more clearly defined.
Since immediate loading is one of the influencing factors, it seems justified to include the study on immediate loading.
The data ad been modified to provide better understanding.
Clinical significance and future directions has been added in the conclusion.
Recent references have been added.

View more View less

Competing Interests

NIL

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

5 Views

18 Oct 2023 | for Version 1

Chandni Batra, Indiana University, New Albany, Indiana, USA

5 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

Include the aim of the study and a sentence on what makes this study different from previously completed similar studies in the introduction.
Inclusion criteria mentions good oral hygiene - how was this defined? (Plaque score/gingival score?)
Inclusion criteria mentions adequate quality/quantity of bone - how was this defined?
Terminology gingival biotype can be changed to gingival phenotype as per the 2017 classification system¹.
Terminology Biologic width can be changed to supracrestal attachment as per 2017 classification system¹.
Please mention in the results (text) whether the measured differences were significant or not significant for better understanding by readers.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

References

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Periodontology and Implant Dentistry

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:

Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

[1] 1. Mish CE: Contemporary implant dentistry – third edition.

[2] 2. Avivi-Arber L, Zarb GA: Clinical effectiveness of implant- supported single tooth replacement: The Toronto stydy. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants. 1996; 11: 311–321.

[3] 3. Lindhe J: Clinical periodontology and implant dentistry. Fifth edition.

[4] 4. Jung RE, Pietrursson BE, Glauser R, et al.: A systemic review of the 5- year survival and complication rates of implant-supported single crowns. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 2008; 19: 119–130. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[5] 5. Weber HP, Crohin CC, Fiorellini JP: A five – year prospective clinical and radiographic study of non-submerged dental implants. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 19, 2000; 11: 144–153. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[6] 6. Anders Ekfeltdt LDS, Dr O, Gunnar E, et al.: Clinical evaluation of single tooth restorations supported by osseointegated implants: A retrospective study. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants. 1994; 9: 179–183

[7] 7. Myron N: Implant therapy. 2nd ed. Quintessence Publishing.

[8] 8. Esposito M, Grusovin MG, Polyzos IP, et al.: Timing of implant placement after tooth extraction: immediate, immediate-delayed or delayed implants? A Cochrane systematic review. Eur. J. Oral Implantol. 2010 Autumn; 3(3): 189–205. PubMed Abstract

[9] 9. Simonis P, Dufour T, Tenenbaum H: Long-term implant survival and success: a 10-16-year follow-up of non-submerged dental implants. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 2010 Jul; 21(7): 772–777. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[10] 10. Lambodharan R, Balaji VR: Interdental papilla regeneration around implants: A novel window technique (2 years follow-up). J. Pharm. Bioallied Sci. 2015; 7(Suppl 2): 815–S818. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[11] 11. Tarnow DP, Magner AW, Fletcher P: The Effect of the Distance From the Contact Point to the Crest of Bone on the Presence or Absence of the Interproximal Dental Papilla. J. Periodontol. 1992; 63: 995–996. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[12] 12. Panaite D, Klokkevold P, Charles A: The peri-implant papilla: realities on papilla preservation and reformation. J. Calif. Dent. Assoc. 2008 Nov; 36(11): 851–867. Retraction in: Felsenfeld AL, Carney KK. J Calif Dent Assoc. 2009 Feb;37(2):71. PubMed Abstract

[13] 13. Hermann JS, Buser D, Schenk RK, et al.: Biologic width around titanium implants. A physiologically formed and stable dimension over time. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 2000 Feb; 11(1):1–11. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[14] 14. John V, Shin D, Marlow A, et al.: Peri-Implant Bone Loss and Peri-Implantitis: A Report of three cases and review of the literature. Shibili JA, editor. Case Rep. Dent. 2016; 2016: 2941714. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[15] 15. Schwartz F, Derks J, Monje A, et al.: Peri-implantitis. J. Periodontol. 2018; 89(supple 1): S267–S290. Publisher Full Text

[16] 16. Henry PJ, Laney WR, Jemt T, et al.: Osseointegrated implants for single-tooth replacement: a prospective 5-year multicenter study. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants. 1996 Jul-Aug; 11(4): 450–455. PubMed Abstract

[17] 17. Eriksson E, Brånemark PI: Osseointegration from the perspective of the plastic surgeon. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 1994 Mar; 93(3): 626–637. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[18] 18. Albrektsson TO, Johansson CB, Sennerby L: Biological aspects of implant dentistry: osseointegration. Periodontology. 1994 Feb; 4(4): 58–73. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[19] 19. Mavrogenis AF, Dimitriou R, Parvizi J, et al.: Biology of implant osseointegration. J. Musculoskelet. Neuronal Interact. 2009 Apr-Jun; 9(2): 61–71. PubMed Abstract

[20] 20. Branemark P-I, Zarb GA, Albrektsson T, et al.: Tissue-Integrated Prostheses. Osseointegration in Clinical Dentistry. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. March 1986; 77(3): 496–497. Publisher Full Text

[21] 21. Zetu L, Wang HL: Management of inter-dental/inter-implant papilla. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2005 Jul; 32(7): 831–839. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[22] 22. Chow YC, Wang HL: Factors and techniques influencing peri-implant papillae. Implant. Dent. 2010 Jun; 19(3): 208–219. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[23] 23. Lung H, Liao SC, Yuan K, et al.: Interdental and inter-implant papilla: Literature review and management. J. Taiwan Acad. Periodontol. 2012; 17: 99–107.

[24] 24. Jemt T: Regeneration of gingival papillae after single-implant treatment. Int. J. Periodontics Restorative Dent. 1997 Aug; 17(4): 326–333. PubMed Abstract

[25] 25. Ryser MR, Block MS, Mercante DE: Correlation of papilla to crestal bone levels around single tooth implants in immediate or delayed crown protocols. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2005 Aug; 63(8): 1184–1195. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[26] 26. Mateos L, Lazaro P, Herrero F, et al.: Periodontal surgical techniques applied to implantology.2003; 15: 57–68.

[27] 27. Raikar S, Talukdar P, Kumari S, et al.: Factors Affecting the Survival Rate of Dental Implants: A Retrospective Study. J. Int. Soc. Prev. Community Dent. 2017; 7(6): 351–355. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[28] 28. Astrand P, Engquist B, Dahlgren S, et al.: Astra Tech and Brånemark system implants: a 5-year prospective study of marginal bone reactions. Clin. Oral Implants. Res. 2004 Aug; 15(4): 413–420. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[29] 29. Barzilay I, Graser GN, Iranpour B, et al.: Immediate implantation of a pure titanium implant into an extraction socket: report of a pilot procedure. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants. 1991 Fall; 6(3): 277–284. PubMed Abstract

[30] 30. Becker W, Lynch SE, Lekholm U, et al.: A comparison of ePTFE membranes alone or in combination with platelet-derived growth factors and insulin-like growth factor-I or demineralized freeze-dried bone in promoting bone formation around immediate extraction socket implants. J. Periodontol. 1992 Nov; 63(11): 929–940. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[31] 31. Gher ME, Quintero G, Assad D, et al.: Bone grafting and guided bone regeneration for immediate dental implants in humans. J. Periodontol. 1994 Sep; 65(9): 881–891. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[32] 32. Rosenquist B, Grenthe B: Immediate placement of implants into extraction sockets: implant survival. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants. 1996 Mar-Apr; 11(2): 205–209. PubMed Abstract

[33] 33. Eriksson RA, Albrektsson T: The effect of heat on bone regeneration: An experimental study in the rabbit using the bone growth chamber. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. Off. J. Am. Assoc. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 1984; 42: 705–711. Publisher Full Text

[34] 34. Schou S, Holmstrup P, Stoltze K, et al.: Probing around implants and teeth with healthy or inflamed peri-implant mucosa/gingiva. A histologic comparison in cynomolgus monkeys (Macaca fascicularis). Clin. Oral Implants Res. 2002 Apr; 13(2): 113–126. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[35] 35. Schropp L, Wenzel A, Kostopoulos L, et al.: Bone healing and soft tissue contour changes following single-tooth extraction: a clinical and radiographic 12-month prospective study. Int. J. Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2003 Aug; 23(4): 313–323. PubMed Abstract

[36] 36. Degidi M, Novaes AB Jr, Nardi D, et al.: Outcome analysis of immediately placed, immediately restored implants in the esthetic area: the clinical relevance of different interimplant distances. J. Periodontol. 2008 Jun; 79(6): 1056–1061. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[37] 37. Guida L, Lezzi G, Annunziata M, et al.: Immediate placement and loading of dental dental implants: A human histological case report. Journal of Periodontal. 2008; 79: 575–581. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[38] 38. Tortamano P, Camargo LO, Bello-Silva MS, et al.: Immediate implant placement and restoration in the esthetic zone: a prospective study with 18 months of follow-up. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants. 2010 Mar-Apr; 25(2): 345–350. PubMed Abstract

[39] 39. Sasi Kumar PK, Abinaya R, Sugumari E, et al.: Clinical and Radiographic Evaluation of Immediate and Delayed Single-tooth Implant Placement: An 18-month Follow-up Study. J. Periodontol. Implant. Dent. 2013; 5(2): 41–54. Publisher Full Text

[40] 40. Tabrizi R, Pourdanesh F, Zare S, et al.: Do Angulated Implants Increase the Amount of Bone Loss Around Implants in the Anterior Maxilla? J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. Off. J. Am. Assoc. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2013; 71: 272–277. Publisher Full Text

[41] 41. Heinemann F, Biffar R, Schwahn C, et al.: Bone level changes in dental implants with platform-switched design after immediate and delayed placement in the maxilla. Int. J. Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2013 May-Jun; 33(3): 365–372. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[42] 42. Ekfeldt A, Carlsson GE, Börjesson G: Clinical evaluation of single-tooth restorations supported by osseointegrated implants: a retrospective study. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants. 1994 Mar-Apr; 9(2): 179–183. PubMed Abstract

[43] 43. De Smet E, Van Steen D, Berghe MQ, et al.: The influence of plaque or excessive loading on marginal soft and hard tissue reaction around implants; A review of literature and experience. Int. J. Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2001; 21: 381–393. PubMed Abstract

[44] 44. Gupta S, Sabharwal R, Nazeer J, et al.: Platform switching technique and crestal bone loss around the dental implants: A systematic review. Ann. Afr. Med. 2019 Jan-Mar; 18(1): 1–6. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[45] 45. Grossberg DE: Interimplant papilla reconstruction: assessment of soft tissue changes and results of 12 consecutive cases. J. Periodontol. 2001 Jul; 72(7): 958–962. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[46] 46. Nariman RH, Pai UY, Soumya MK, et al.: A clinical assessment of the volume of interproximal papilla after definitive prosthesis around immediate and delayed loading implants placed in the maxillary esthetic zone: An in vivo study. J. Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2018 Apr-Jun; 18(2): 168–173. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[47] 47. Lee EJ, Meraw SJ, Oh TJ, et al.: Comparative histologic analysis of coronally advanced flap with and without collagen membrane for root coverage. J. Periodontol. 2002; 73(7): 779–788. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[48] 48. Gerber JA, Tan WC, Balmer TE, et al.: Bleeding on probing and pocket probing depth in relation to probing pressure and mucosal health around oral implants. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 2009; 20: 75–78. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[49] 49. Renvert S, Samuelsson E, Lindahl C, et al.: Mechanical non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis: a double-blind randomized longitudinal clinical study. I: clinical results. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2009 Jul; 36(7): 604–609. Erratum in: J Clin Periodontol. 2009 Dec; 36(12):1076. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[50] 50. Laney WR, Jemt T, Harris D, et al.: Osseointegrated implants for single-tooth replacement: progress report from a multicenter prospective study after 3 years. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants. 1994 Jan-Feb; 9(1): 49–54. PubMed Abstract

[51] 51. Henry PJ, Laney WR, Jemt T, et al.: Osseointegrated implants for single tooth replacement: A prospective 5 – year multicentre Study. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants. 1996; 11: 450–455. PubMed Abstract

[52] 52. Scheller H, Urgell P, Kultje C, et al.: A 5-year multicentre study on implant-supported single crown restorations. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants. 1998; 13: 212–218. PubMed Abstract

[53] 53. Tarnow DP, Cho SC, Wallace SS: The effect of inter-implant distance on the height of inter-implant bone crest. J. Periodontol. 2000 Apr; 71(4): 546–549. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[54] 54. Gastaldo JF, Cury PR, Sendyk WR: Effect of the vertical and horizontal distances between adjacent implants and between a tooth and an implant on the incidence of interproximal papilla. J. Periodontol. 2004 Sep; 75(9): 1242–1246. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[55] 55. Meijndert CM, Raghoebar GM, Meijndert L, et al.: Single implants in the aesthetic region preceded by local ridge augmentation; a 10-year randomized controlled trial. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 2017 Apr; 28(4): 388–395. Epub 2016 Feb 26. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[56] 56. Misch CE, Misch-Dietsh F, Silc J, et al.: Posterior implant single-tooth replacement and status of adjacent teeth during a 10-year period: a retrospective report. J. Periodontol. 2008 Dec; 79(12): 2378–2382. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[57] 57. Kim YK, Kim SG, Yun PY, et al.: Prognosis of single molar implants: a retrospective study. Int. J. Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2010 Aug; 30(4): 401–407. PubMed Abstract

[58] 58. Cosyn J, De Lat L, Seyssens L, et al.: The effectiveness of immediate implant placement for single tooth replacement compared to delayed implant placement: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2019 Jun; 46: 224–241. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[59] 59. Patel R, Ucer C, Wright S, et al.: Differences in dental implant survival between immediate vs. delayed placement: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Dent. J (Basel). 2023 Sep 15; 11(9): 218. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[60] 60. Mello CC, Lemos CA, Verri FR, et al.: Immediate implant placement into fresh extraction sockets versus delayed implants into healed sockets: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2017 Sep 1; 46(9): 1162–1177. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[61] 61. Raj A, Pradhan S, Dr Shetty N : Underlying data. [Dataset]. figshare. 2022. Publisher Full Text

Comparison of crestal bone loss and papilla fill after conventional and immediate implant placement: A 12 month clinical and radiographic prospective study

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keywords

Revised Amendments from Version 1

Introduction

Methods

Ethics and consent

Procedure

Sample size calculation

Randomization

Inclusion criteria for the patients

Figure 1. Operative images of implant placement in immediate group (group 1).

Figure 2. Operative images of implant placments in conventional group (group 2).

Figure 3. Papillary fill in the immediate implant placement group (group 1) at baseline, 6 months and 12 months.

Figure 4. Papillary fill in the conventional implant placement group (group 2) at baseline, 6 months and 12 months.

Jemt Index (Torsten Jemt, 1997)

Table 1. Jemt Index.

Modified Plaque Index (Mombelli et al. 1987)

Modified Gingival Index (Apse et al. 1991)

Gingival biotype

Radiographic technique and measurements

Statistical analysis

Results

Table 2. The vertical distance from the shoulder of the implant (FAJ) and the most coronal part of bone contacting the implant (FAJ-I) between the groups at baseline, 6 months and 12 months.

Table 3. Intergroup comparison of FAJ-Adj. - at baseline, 6 months and 12 months.

Table 4. Intergroup comparison of soft tissue height at baseline, 6 months and 12 months.

Table 5. Intergroup comparison of distance between Contact point - Bone crest (CP - BC) at baseline, 6 months and 12 months.

Discussion

Conclusion

Patients’ declaration of consent

Authors’ contributions

Data availability

Underlying data

Reporting guidelines

Acknowledgements

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Browse by related subjects

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated