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.
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.
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.