Late implant placement following ridge preservation versus early implant placement: A pilot randomized clinical trial for periodontally compromised non-molar extraction sites

Abstract

Aim: To compare late implant placement following alveolar ridge preservation (LP/ARP) and early implantation (EP) in periodontally compromised non-molar extraction sites with respect to soft tissue levels, aesthetics, and patient-reported outcomes. Materials and methods: Sixteen patients were randomly allocated to groups LP/ARP (n = 9) or EP (n = 7). Group LP/ARP received ARP using deproteinized bovine bone mineral containing 10% collagen and a native bilayer collagen membrane, and group EP received only extraction. Implant placement was performed 4–8 weeks post-extraction in group EP and 4 months post-alveolar ridge preservation in group LP/ARP. The soft tissue levels, pink/white esthetic scores, and periodontal parameters were evaluated at 1 year post-loading. Patient's discomfort level was evaluated in terms of extraction/ARP and implant placement. Results: No implant failure or biologic complications occurred. There was no statistically significant difference in the median change of the midfacial mucosal margin (0.03 for group LP/ARP, −0.19 mm for group EP) and the mesial/distal papilla (0.62/0.25 mm for group LP/ARP, 0.29/−0.5 mm for group EP), pink/white esthetic scores, periodontal parameters, and patient's discomfort between the two groups. Conclusion: Both implant placement protocols led to comparable outcomes in soft tissue levels, periodontal parameters, and patient's discomfort level.