Does timing of implant placement affect esthetic results in single‐tooth implants? A cohort evaluation based on mPES. Issue 7 (29th August 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Ghahroudi, Amir A. R.; Rokn, Amir R.; Shamshiri, Ahmad R.; Samiei, Nazanin
• Is Part Of: Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry. Volume 32:Issue 7(2020)
• Page Start: 715
• Page End: 725
• Publication Date: 2020-08-29
• Subjects: dental implants -- esthetics -- keratinized tissue -- maxilla -- mPES; Prosthodontics -- Periodicals; 617.6
• DOI: 10.1111/jerd.12631
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1496-4155

Abstract

Abstract: Objective: This study sought to use the mPES to assess various maxillary implant surgical results and placement timing in the esthetic zone. Materials and methods: This cohort study was conducted on 146 patients undergoing immediate, early, and late implantation. They received maxillary single‐tooth implants in the anterior region during the past 5 years. Patients were clinically examined to determine their mPES and patient−/implant‐related parameters. Simple and multiple nominal regression analyses were applied to show how such parameters correlated with mPES. Results: The results were found to be in three categories namely the most clinically excellent, acceptable, and unacceptable. Although the most frequent clinically excellent results were noted in the late implantation (late 49.0%, early 25.6%, immediate 24.1%); early implantation was the group with the least frequent clinically unacceptable results (late 16.3%, early 4.7%, immediate 14.8%). The mean width of keratinized tissue was significantly more in patients with clinically excellent results ( P ‐value = 0.01). Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, the author(s) drew the following conclusions: (a) the late implant placement was more likely to be reliable and esthetically acceptable, (b) early implant placement remained the safest method to prevent unaesthetic appearance, and (c) Width of keratinized gingiva (≥3 mm) was a significant factor to achieve implant esthetic results. Clinical significance: Maxillary single‐tooth implants in the anterior region often have optimal osseointegration and functional performance, but esthetic plays a significant role in the success of these implants. So the aim of the present study was to employ mPES to assess the effect of placement timing and other patient and implant‐related variables on esthetic outcomes.