Lang NP, Pun L, Lau KY A systematic review on survival and success rates of implants placed immediately into fresh extraction sockets after at least 1 year. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012; 23:39-66 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02372.x
Moeintaghavi A, Radvar M, Arab HR Evaluation of 3-to 8-year treatment outcomes and success rates with 6 implant brands in partially edentulous patients. J Oral Implantol. 2012; 38 Spec No:441-448 https://doi.org/10.1563/aaid-joi-d-10-00117
Belser UC, Grütter L, Vailati F Outcome evaluation of early placed maxillary anterior single-tooth implants using objective esthetic criteria: a cross-sectional, retrospective study in 45 patients with a 2-to 4-year follow-up using pink and white esthetic scores. J Periodontol. 2009; 80:140-151 https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2009.080435
Sanchez-Perez A, Sanchez-Matas Nicolas-Silvente AI Primary stability and PES/WES evaluation for immediate implants in the aesthetic zone: a pilot clinical double-blind randomized study. Sci Rep. 2021; 11 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-99218-8
Chen ST, Buser D Esthetic outcomes following immediate and early implant placement in the anterior maxilla – a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014; 186-215 https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.2014suppl.g3.3
Papaspyridakos P, Chen CJ, Singh M Success criteria in implant dentistry: a systematic review. J Dent Res. 2012; 91:242-248 https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034511431252
Fürhauser R, Florescu D, Benesch T Evaluation of soft tissue around single-tooth implant crowns: the pink esthetic score. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2005; 16:639-644 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2005.01193.x
Buser D, Martin W, Belser UC Optimizing esthetics for implant restorations in the anterior maxilla: anatomic and surgical considerations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004; 43-61
Dawson A, Martin WC, Polido WD, 2nd edn. : Quintessence; 2022
Correia A, Rebolo A, Azevedo L SAC Assessment tool in implant dentistry: evaluation of the agreement level between users. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2020; 35:990-994 https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.8023
Derks J, Schaller D, Håkansson J Effectiveness of implant therapy analyzed in a Swedish population: prevalence of peri-implantitis. J Dent Res. 2016; 95:43-49 https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034515608832
Levine RA, Martin WC Esthetic risk assessment in implant dentistry. Inside Dentistry. 2012; 66-71
Chen ST, Buser D, Sculean A, Belser UC Complications and treatment errors in implant positioning in the aesthetic zone: diagnosis and possible solutions. Periodontol 2000. 2023; 92:220-234 https://doi.org/10.1111/prd.12474
Joda T, Brägger U Digital vs. conventional implant prosthetic workflows: a cost/time analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015; 26:1430-1435 https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12476
Dolcini GA, Colombo M, Mangano C From guided surgery to final prosthesis with a fully digital procedure: a prospective clinical study on 15 partially edentulous patients. Int J Dent. 2016; 2016 https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/7358423
Wittneben JG, Gavric J, Belser UC Esthetic and clinical performance of implant-supported all-ceramic crowns made with prefabricated or CAD/CAM zirconia abutments: a randomized, multicenter clinical trial. J Dent Res. 2017; 96:163-170 https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034516681767
Hanozin B, Li Manni L, Lecloux G Digital vs. conventional workflow for one-abutment one-time immediate restoration in the esthetic zone: a randomized controlled trial. Int J Implant Dent. 2022; 8 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-022-00406-6
Gamborena I, Sasaki Y, Blatz MB Predictable immediate implant placement and restoration in the esthetic zone. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2021; 33:158-172 https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12716
Kan JY, Rungcharassaeng K, Sclar A, Lozada JL Effects of the facial osseous defect morphology on gingival dynamics after immediate tooth replacement and guided bone regeneration: 1-year results. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2007; 65:(7)13-19 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2007.04.006
Chen ST, Darby IB, Reynolds EC A prospective clinical study of non-submerged immediate implants: clinical outcomes and esthetic results. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2007; 18:552-562 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01388.x
Buser D, Bornstein MM, Weber HP Early implant placement with simultaneous guided bone regeneration following single-tooth extraction in the esthetic zone: a cross-sectional, retrospective study in 45 subjects with a 2-to 4-year follow-up. J Periodontol. 2008; 79:1773-1781 https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2008.080071
Zhao R, Yang R, Cooper PR Bone grafts and substitutes in dentistry: a review of current trends and developments. Molecules. 2021; 26 https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules26103007
Kruger J, Dunning D Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1999; 77:1121-1134 https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.77.6.1121
Buser D, Chappuis V, Belser UC, Chen S Implant placement post extraction in esthetic single tooth sites: when immediate, when early, when late?. Periodontol 2000. 2017; 73:84-102 https://doi.org/10.1111/prd.12170
Barone A, Toti P, Marconcini S Esthetic outcome of implants placed in fresh extraction sockets by clinicians with or without experience: a medium-term retrospective evaluation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2016; 31:1397-1406 https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.4646
Morton D, Chen ST, Martin WC Consensus statements and recommended clinical procedures regarding optimizing esthetic outcomes in implant dentistry. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014; 29 Suppl:216-220 https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.2013.g3
Buser D, Halbritter S, Hart C Early implant placement with simultaneous guided bone regeneration following single-tooth extraction in the esthetic zone: 12-month results of a prospective study with 20 consecutive patients. J Periodontol. 2009; 80:152-162 https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2009.080360
Implant placement in the anterior maxilla has been shown to have success rates comparable to posteriorly placed implants. However, the aesthetic outcome of these implants is, unsurprisingly, of much greater importance to patients, and can provide a significant clinical challenge. Predictable outcomes are undoubtedly harder to achieve and sustain, and greater consideration must be given to the precision of implant positioning and restoration in order to achieve clinical and aesthetic success. This article discusses the many factors affecting aesthetic implant predictability, from assessment and planning, through to materials, execution and restoration, with a focus on timings and early (Type II) placement.
CPD/Clinical Relevance: For the majority of clinicians, Type II methodology for anterior implants is the more appropriate choice and gives predictable and stable outcomes.
Article
Missing or damaged teeth in the anterior maxilla, the ‘aesthetic zone’, undoubtedly pose a challenge, and there are several treatment options for a patient with one or more missing teeth in this area:
Replacement of a single tooth with an implant-supported crown has become a popular treatment of choice. Implant placement in the anterior maxilla has been shown to have success rates comparable to posteriorly placed implants,1,2 and the aesthetic results of implants in this area are the subject of many studies owing to their complex nature.3,4,5 Predictable outcomes are undoubtedly more challenging to achieve and sustain, and greater consideration must be given to the precision of implant positioning and restoration in order to achieve both clinical and aesthetic success. Moreover, patient expectations are likely to be higher because there are both functional and aesthetic implications to consider, with emphasis on psychological and social outcomes in addition to physical and functional results.
Register now to continue reading
Thank you for visiting Dental Update and reading some of our resources. To read more, please register today. You’ll enjoy the following great benefits:
