Long-term stability of early implant placement with contour augmentation

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

Long-term stability of contour augmentation with early implant placement following single tooth extraction in the esthetic zone: a prospective, cross-sectional study in 41 patients with a 5- to 9-year follow-up

BACKGROUND Early implant placement with simultaneous contour augmentation is documented with short- and medium-term studies. The long-term stability of contour augmentation is uncertain. METHODS In this prospective, cross-sectional study, 41 patients with an implant-borne single crown were examined twice, in 2006 and 2010. Clinical, radiologic, and esthetic parameters were assessed at both examinations. In addition, a cone beam computed tomographic (CBCT) image was obtained during the second examination to assess the dimensions of the facial bone wall. RESULTS All 41 implants demonstrated ankylotic stability without signs of peri-implant infection at both examinations. The clinical parameters remained stable over time. Satisfactory esthetic outcomes were noted, as assessed by the pink and white esthetic score (PES/WES) indices. Overall, the PES scores were slightly higher than the WES scores. None of the implants developed mucosal recession over time, as confirmed by values of the distance between implant shoulder and mucosal margin and cast measurements. The periapical radiographs yielded stable peri-implant bone levels, with a mean distance between implant shoulder and first visible bone-implant contact value of 2.18 mm. The CBCT analysis demonstrated a mean thickness of the facial bone wall ≈2.2 mm. In two implants (4.9%) no facial bone wall was detectable radiographically. CONCLUSIONS This prospective cross-sectional study demonstrates stable peri-implant hard and soft tissues for all 41 implants examined and satisfactory esthetic outcomes overall. The follow-up of 5 to 9 years confirmed again that the risk for mucosal recession is low with early implant placement. In addition, contour augmentation with guided bone regeneration was able to establish and maintain a facial bone wall in 95% of patients.