The soft tissue esthetic outcome with and without immediate provisionalization in immediate implants: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Aim: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed at checking influences of immediate provisionalization on the primary esthetic outcome by Pink Esthetic Score (PES) as well as other secondary soft tissue outcomes such as bleeding on probing, probing depth, plaque index, mesial papillary recession, distal papillary recession, and midfacial mucosal recession of the peri-implant mucosa around immediately placed implants in the anterior maxilla. Setting and Design: This systematic review and meta-analysis was evaluated using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Materials and Methods: The relevant studies were found in the databases such as MEDLINE (PubMed), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Science Direct, and Google Scholar. The search was restricted to studies published in English only, with no time constraints. A second hand search was conducted on individual journals and study reference lists. The Evidence Project risk-of-bias tool was used to assess the risk of bias in included studies. The level of evidence was determined using the GRADEpro GDT: GRADEpro Guideline Development Tool (software). McMaster University, 2020 (developed by Evidence Prime, Inc.,) Statistical Analysis Used: The statistical meta-analysis was conducted by using Review Manager (RevMan) (Computer Program). Version 5.4. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, the Cochrane Collaboration, 2020. Results: Nine studies were finalized. Seven studies were selected out of nine in the meta-analysis for PES. The results of the current meta-analysis for primary outcome observed that immediate implant placement (IIP) followed by immediate provisionalization improves the esthetic outcome, with forest plot favoring immediate provisionalization and demonstrating a statistically significant difference (mean difference [MD] =1.54, [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.82-2.27], P < 0.0001). Statistically insignificant result was observed for secondary outcomes; bleeding on probing (MD = 4.00, [95% CI: -1.15-9.15], P = 0.13), probing depth (MD = 0.17, [95% CI: -0.13-0.48], P = 0.26), plaque index (MD = -1.00, [95% CI: -7.56-5.56], P = 0.77), mesial papillary recession (MD = -0.10, [95% CI: -0.31-0.10], P = 0.33), midfacial mucosal recession (MD = -0.47, [95% CI: -1.01-0.07], P = 0.09). However, for distal papillary recession (MD = -0.32, [95% CI: -0.50 - 0.13], P = 0.0007), the result was statistically significant with forest plot favoring immediate provisionalization. Conclusion: When the implant is placed in the esthetic zone, IIP with immediate provisionalization provides the best gingival (pink) esthetics.