International Journal of Oral Implantology & Clinical Research

Register      Login

VOLUME 8 , ISSUE 1 ( January-April, 2017 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Comparative Evaluation of Clinical and Radiological Outcomes of Immediate and Delayed Dental Implant Rehabilitation: A Prospective Study

Supriya Manvi, Ravish Tongya, Anil Maruti Managutti, Michael Prakasm, Jigar Patel, Dishan Shah, Sunita Managutti

Citation Information : Manvi S, Tongya R, Managutti AM, Prakasm M, Patel J, Shah D, Managutti S. Comparative Evaluation of Clinical and Radiological Outcomes of Immediate and Delayed Dental Implant Rehabilitation: A Prospective Study. Int J Oral Implantol Clin Res 2017; 8 (1):12-16.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10012-1160

License: CC BY 3.0

Published Online: 01-04-2017

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2017; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Introduction

The original implant surgical protocol proposed by Bran Mark et al involves open flap access, stepwise osteotomy of the bony ridge, and implant placement followed by good primary closure.

Objectives

To compare the radiographic marginal bone loss, pocket depth, clinical outcome associated with immediate and delayed implants, and success rates 2 years after the placement of implants.

Materials and methods

Totally 62 dental implants were placed in 42 patients. They were randomly selected to the immediate or delayed group. Among those selected, 30 were immediate implants and 32 were delayed implants. The width and depth of marginal bone defects around the implants were measured clinically just after placement and 3 months later at the abutment surgery. Bone healing and marginal bone changes were evaluated radiographically and clinical parameters evaluated were pocket depth, local infection, altered sensation, soft tissue dehiscence, pus discharge, implant mobility, and patient's satisfaction. All the collected data were subjected to statistical analysis using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences version 17 software. Statistical analysis was done using Z test.

Results

The results revealed that there was a significant difference in pocket depth and crestal bone loss in both groups. Mean pocket depth in immediate group was 3.285 mm and mean pocket depth in delayed group was 3.523 mm at 1 year. There were minimal crestal bone losses in the immediate group as compared with delayed implant group at 1-year follow-up. Also, there were reduced complications, such as local infection, altered sensation, soft tissue dehiscence, and pus discharge in immediate implant placement group and resulted in patient's satisfaction.

We conclude that the immediate dental implant placement is significantly superior over the delayed implant placement.

Managutti AM, Tongya R, Prakasm M, Manvi S, Patel J, Shah D, Managutti S. Comparative Evaluation of Clinical and Radiological Outcomes of Immediate and Delayed Dental Implant Rehabilitation: A Prospective Study. Int J Oral Implantol Clin Res 2017;8(1):12-16.


  1. Immediate and delayed restoration of dental implants in patients with a history of periodontitis: a prospective evaluation up to 5 years. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012 Sep-Oct;27(5):1137-1143.
  2. histologic evaluation of immediate versus delayed placement of implants after tooth extraction. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2001 Jul;92(1):17-22.
  3. Immediate or early placement of implants following tooth extraction: review of biologic basis, clinical procedures, and outcomes. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2004 Feb;19 (Suppl):12-25.
  4. Interventions for replacing missing teeth: dental implants in fresh extraction sockets (immediate, immediate-delayed and delayed implants). Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010 Sep;9:CD005968.
  5. Bone healing following immediate versus delayed placement of titanium implants into extraction sockets: a prospective clinical study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2003 Mar-Apr;18(2):189-199.
  6. A comparative evaluation of immediate dental implant with autogenous versus synthetic guided bone regeneration. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008 Nov;106(5):e8-e15.
  7. Immediate implants following tooth extraction. A systematic review. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2012 Mar;17(2):e251-e261.
  8. Immediate implant placement and provisionalization using a customized anatomic temporary abutment (CATA) to achieve gingival marginal stability. Compendium 2013 May;34(5).
  9. Single stage immediate implant placements in the esthetic zone. J Oral Implantol 2012 Dec;38(6):738-746.
  10. Immediate provisionalization of immediate implants in the esthetic zone: a prospective case series evaluating implant survival, esthetics, and bone maintenance. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2013 May;34(5):352-361.
  11. Survival rate of immediately' vs delayed loaded implants: analysis of the current literature. J Oral Implantol 2010;36(4):315-324.
  12. Dental implants in the atrophic maxilla: measurements of patients' satisfaction and treatment experience. Clin Oral Impl Res 1998 Oct;9(5):321-326.
  13. Buccal bone plate remodeling after immediate implant placement with and without synthetic bone grafting and flapless surgery: radiographic study in dogs. J Oral Implantol 2012 Dec:38(6):687-699.
  14. Implant installation with bone augmentation and transmucosal healing with demineralized human cortical bone in the maxillary anterior region: report of 3 cases. J Oral Implantol 2012 Dec;38(6):762-766.
  15. The team approach to esthetic immediate implant placement. Restorative Dentist/Periodontist Partnership 2012 Oct;33(9).
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.