Esthetic Outcomes for Immediate Implant Placement with Immediate Provisionalization in the Anterior Maxilla with Buccal Dehiscence: Results of a Comparative Pilot Study.

Purpose: The aim of this pilot exploratory cohort study was to assess the value of buccal augmentation in immediate implant placement and immediate restoration of anterior teeth in maxillae with missing buccal lamellar bone with regard to esthetic parameters, as well as soft and hard tissue level changes. Materials and Methods: This study compared three groups of 10 patients each with immediate implant placement and immediate restoration in the anterior maxilla: (1) patients with partially to totally missing buccal bone with simultaneous augmentation with bovine collagen (test group augmented [TGA]); (2) patients with partially to totally missing buccal bone without augmentation (test group nonaugmented [TNA]); and (3) patients with intact buccal lamellar bone (control group [CG]). The pink esthetic score (PES) and the course of the peri-implant bone level after 1, 3, and 12 months were used as assessment criteria. Results: Af ter 12 months, the PES in the TGA was assessed as being better than it was preoperatively (mean ± SD: 8 ± 3.09 vs 9.25 ± 3.01, respectively, P = .8243), while it remained almost identical in the other two groups (TNA = 8.75 ± 2.7 vs 8.6 ± 3.3, P = .4098; CG = 10.6 ± 2.41 vs 10.6 ± 2.22, P = .7085). A significant difference among the PES values of the three groups was not observed at any point in time (preoperative: P = .118, 12 months: P = .383). In total, the TNA and CG showed an improvement in 3 out of 7 parameters of the PES after 12 months, while this was the case in 5 out of 7 parameters in the TGA. No significant difference among the three groups could be seen at any time point regarding peri-implant bone level. In the CG and TGA patients, a nonsignificant improvement in peri-implant bone level was seen after 12 months (respectively: 1.6 mm to 0.99 mm; P = .08068; 1.89 mm to 1.73 mm; P = .5866). In contrast, TNA patients showed a nonsignificant deterioration vs the postoperative situation (1.16 mm to 1.45 mm; P = .08208). Conclusion: Within the limitations of this pilot study, it can be concluded that a missing buccal lamellar bone appears to be no contraindication for immediate implant placement and immediate restoration, provided the baseline esthetic situation is accepted. As compared to the nonaugmented defect group or the group with intact lamellar bone, neither the esthetic nor the radiologic results could be improved significantly by augmentation with bovine collagen. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]