World Journal of Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 12 , ISSUE 5 ( September-October, 2021 ) > List of Articles


Evaluation of the Impact of Immediate and Delayed Implant Placement on Crestal Bone: A Comparative Study

M Arun, Cathryn BP Felix, Crystal R Soans

Keywords : Crestal bone, Delayed implant, Extraction socket, Immediate implant

Citation Information : Arun M, Felix CB, Soans CR. Evaluation of the Impact of Immediate and Delayed Implant Placement on Crestal Bone: A Comparative Study. World J Dent 2021; 12 (5):376-380.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-1857

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 29-09-2021

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2021; The Author(s).


Aim and objective: This study aimed to assess the impact of the immediate and delayed clinical placement of implants on the crestal bone. Materials and methods: In this study, a total of 30 implant areas in 30 patients were analyzed. The study group constituted 14 male and 16 female participants in the age range of 20–40 years. A random allocation of the patients into one of the two groups (15 per group) was done as group I: immediate implant placement and group II: delayed implant placement. In both the groups, plaque index, gingival index, probing depth (PD) as well as crestal bone height was calculated at baseline, 3rd month, and 6th month. The statistical analysis was performed with Statistical Package for Social Sciences. The Student's t-test was used for comparison between the two groups. Results: The group that received immediate implants depicted somewhat greater mean baseline plaque score and at 3 months (2.69 ± 0.18 and 3.82 ± 0.02) in comparison with the group that received delayed implants (2.54 ± 0.10 and 3.78 ± 0.03). Somewhat higher mean gingival score at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months (1.10 ± 0.09, 1.48 ± 0.30, and 1.36 ± 0.22) were seen with delayed implant placement in contrast to immediate implant placement (1.02 ± 0.21, 1.28 ± 0.16, and 1.34 ± 0.24). The immediate implant group exhibited a somewhat higher mean PD score at baseline and 3 months (2.87 ± 0.12 and 3.42 ± 0.09) in comparison with the delayed implant group (2.04 ± 0.07 and 3.31 ± 0.13). Delayed implant group had faintly advanced loss of bone (0.20 ± 0.02, 1.34 ± 0.11, 1.10 ± 0.13) when compared with the immediate implant group (0.14 ± 0.08, 1.08 ± 0.01, 0.98 ± 0.04) at baseline, 3rd, and 6th month in that order. A statistically significant dissimilarity was present at the 3 months interval among both the groups. Conclusion: This research concluded that immediate implant placement is significantly better than delayed implant placement. Preservation of crestal bone with prevention of collapse of the architecture of gingiva is achieved through immediate implant placement. The therapy time, preservation of esthetically acceptable gingiva as well as enhanced patient comfort is among the other advantages. Clinical significance: Implants provide a basis for prosthetic support. Recently, immediate implant placement has become increasingly popular due to short treatment duration and higher patient contentment.

  1. Pal US, Dhiman NK, Singh G, et al. Evaluation of implants placed immediately or delayed into extraction sites. Natl J Maxillofac Surg 2011;2(1):54–62. DOI: 10.4103/0975-5950.85855.
  2. Chen ST, Wilson TG, Hämmerle CH. Immediate or early placement of implants following tooth extraction: review of biologic basis, clinical procedures, and outcomes. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2004;19(Suppl):12–25.
  3. Muthukumar B, Gopichander N, Katare U. Clinical and radiographic evaluation of single unit implant-retained prosthesis with immediate and delayed loading. SRM J Dent Sci 2010;1:48–50.
  4. Simunek A, Kopecka D, Brazda T. Development of implant stability during early healing of immediately loaded implants. Int J Maxillofac Implants 2012;27(3):619–627.
  5. Cavallaro JS. Implant survival and radiographic analysis of proximal bone levels surrounding a contemporary dental implant. Implant Dent 2011;20(2):146–156. DOI: 10.1097/ID.0b013e31820fbc31.
  6. Diwakar D, Ebenezer V. Comparative analysis of peri - implant bone levels in immediate and delayed implants – a retrospective study. Int J Curr Res 2021;13(04):16918–16922.
  7. Prasad KD, Shetty M, Bansal N, et al. Platform switching: an answer to crestal bone loss. J Dent Implants 2011;1(1):13–17. DOI: 10.4103/0974-6781.76426.
  8. Schulte W, Heimke G. The Tubinger immediate implant. Quintessenz 1976;27(6):17–23.
  9. Slagter KW, den Hartog L, Bakker NA, et al. Immediate placement of dental implants in the esthetic zone: a systematic review and pooled analysis. J Periodontol 2014;85(7):241–250. DOI: 10.1902/jop.2014.130632.
  10. Tonetti MS, Cortellini P, Graziani F, et al. Immediate versus delayed implant placement after anterior single tooth extraction: the timing randomized controlled clinical trial. J Clin Periodonto 2017;44(2): 215–224. DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.12666.
  11. Abou-Zeid AW, Hassan K, Zayed M. Densitometric and clinical evaluation of immediate versus delayed implants. Life Sci J 2014;11:220–227.
  12. Pellicer-Chover H, Peñarrocha-Oltra D, Bagán L, et al. Single-blind randomized clinical trial to evaluate clinical and radiological outcomes after one year of immediate versus delayed implant placement supporting full-arch prostheses. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2014;19(3):e295–e301. DOI: 10.4317/medoral. 19536.
  13. Gökçen-Röhlig B, Meriç U, Keskin H. Clinical and radiographic outcomes of implants immediately placed in fresh extraction sockets. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2010;109(4):e1–e7. DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2009.11.030.
  14. Sekar S, Suthanthiran T, Thangavelu A, et al. Clinical and radiological evaluation of delayed and early loading of single-tooth implant placement: a 6-month, prospective, randomized, follow-up clinical study. J Pharm Bioall Sci 2019;11(Suppl 2):S278–S284. DOI: 10.4103/JPBS.JPBS_12_19.
  15. Donati M, La V, Billi M, et al. Immediate functional loading of implants in single tooth replacement: a prospective clinical multicenter study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008;19(8):740–748. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01552.x.
  16. Bilhan H, Mumcu E, Arat S. The role of timing of loading on later marginal bone loss around dental implants: a retrospective clinical study. J Oral Implantol 2010;36(5):363–376. DOI: 10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-09-00078.
  17. Kumar PK, Ravikumar A, Elavarasu S, 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;5:41–54.
  18. 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 2013;71(2):272–277. DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2012.09.027.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.