Purpose: To determine whether immediate implant placement and loading renders different outcomes from delayed loading with respect to midfacial mucosal level in the maxillary esthetic area.
Materials and Methods: A literature search was conducted in four electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane), identifying eligible clinical studies published prior to December 2021. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing immediate implant placement with or without immediate loading in the maxillary esthetic zone with a mean follow-up of at least 12 months were selected for qualitative analysis and meta-analysis. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was adopted to assess the quality of the evidence. The heterogeneity between the pooled literature was analyzed through the chi-square test (P < .05) and quantified by the I2 index. A mixed-effects model was applied if it appeared that there was noteworthy heterogeneity; otherwise, a random-effects model was chosen. For continuous outcomes, the estimate of relative effect was presented to display the standardized mean differences (SMDs) and 95% CIs. For dichotomous variables, the Mantel-Haenszel statistical method was applied with effect sizes expressed as risk ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs. This study is registered on PROSPERO with number CRD42017078611.
Results: Out of 5,553 records, 8 RCTs were involved, providing data for 324 immediately placed implants (immediate implants subjected to immediate loading [IPIL]: 163; immediate implants subjected to delayed loading [IPDL]: 161) that had been in function within 12 to 60 months. Meta-analyses revealed significantly lower midfacial mucosal level changes for IPIL compared with IPDL, pointing to 0.48 mm (95% CI: –0.84 to –0.12; P = .01), as well as more significant papillary recession after IPDL (SMD –0.16; 95% CI: –0.31 to 0.00; P = .04). The differences regarding implant survival and marginal bone loss between the two loading groups showed no statistical significance. The result of metaanalyses revealed similar plaque score (SMD 0.03; 95% CI: –0.22 to 0.29; P = .79) and probing depth (SMD –0.09; 95% CI: –0.23 to 0.05; P = .21) for IPIL and IPDL. On the other hand, IPIL induced a trend toward more bleeding on probing (SMD 0.22; 95% CI: 0.01 to 0.42; P = .04) and less change in facial ridge dimension (SMD 0.94; 95% CI: –1.49 to –0.39; P < .01).
Conclusion: After a follow-up ranging from 12 to 60 months, midfacial mucosa level change was 0.48 mm lower following IPIL compared with IPDL. Immediate implant placement and loading is conducive to the preservation of physiologic soft and hard tissue architecture, appearing to offer considerable benefits in the anterior zone. In summary, IPIL should be considered in the esthetic zone if the primary implant stability permits.