Immediate vs Standard Implant Treatment in Extraction Sockets?

There are not many long-term studies that address potential complications of single implants 5+ years post follow up, especially as it relates to the comparison of immediately implant treatment vs the standard protocol. A recent study 1, though, documented 8- to 10-year clinical outcomes of immediately restored single implants in extraction sockets, comparing cases that involved immediate implant treatment [IIT] and healed bone (conventional implant treatment [CIT]).

The conclusion:

Immediately restored single implants in extraction sockets and healed ridges demonstrate good long-term outcomes in terms of implant survival, crestal bone loss, and peri-implant health. However, biologic and especially technical complications are common.1 Read More

What has been your clinical experience with immediately restored implants vs the standard treatment in extraction sockets?

1.Clinical Outcome After 8 to 10 Years of Immediately Restored Single Implants Placed in Extraction Sockets and Healed Ridges.. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2018 May/Jun;38(3):337-345. Raes S et al.

4 thoughts on: Immediate vs Standard Implant Treatment in Extraction Sockets?

  1. Allen Honigman DDS MS says:

    I would rather have seen a study looking at immediate vs . Standard without an immediate provisional. Trauma from occlusion can affect healing, especially in an immediate. I have found no difference in healing or integration between the 2 when they are performed either as one stage ( healing abutment only) vs 2 stage. I also feel that 10 weeks is too short a time to load, especially with an immediate placement. I will wait at least 4 months for final impressions. Don’t see a reason to rush biology to achieve more predictable long term outcomes.

  2. Dale Gerke - BDS, BScDent(Hons), PhD, MDS, FRACDS, MRACDS (Pros) says:

    Perhaps I am reading this abstract wrongly but it seems to me that there was approximately a 10% failure rate with immediately placed implants and zero failure rate with conventional. It seems to be generally accepted that the differential failure rate for immediate implants is approximately 5% to 10% higher than conventional. So it would appear this study confirms this. However the study only has very low numbers and as such has little significance.
    Further, the “drop out” rate seems to be roughly 25% and this could be because the “drop out” implants failed and the patients did not want to return for follow up due to dis-satisfaction.
    Lastly there is a high percentage of complications but it was not obvious whether these complications were all from the immediate implant group or a percentage from the combined groups.
    Therefore while interesting, the study does not really provide substantial results which would influence a clinical decision any more than the previous literature.

  3. DR.ieng piseth says:

    As experiences frankly single implant in recent socket provide good result and long term of implant survival than delayed implant placement.

  4. Dr. Bill Woods says:

    I have placed some immediate implants but in my experience everything has to be just so to get great results. Most of my patients don’t mind a four month wait fir conventional 2 stage placement. As one instructor said in the Maxicourse, “ You can’t push and fool biology. You can play with it a little but it holds the cards. The procedure is only a short part of the whole deal. “ I’m good with that.
    JM2C. Bill

Leave a Comment:

Comment Guidelines: By posting comments you agree to accept our Terms of Use, Disclaimer and Privacy Policy. For more details, read our comment guidelines. Though we require an email to comment, we will NEVER publish your email.
Required fields are marked *

Posted in Clinical Questions, Research and News.
Bookmark Immediate vs Standard Implant Treatment in Extraction Sockets?