Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40707170›Full record

Observational studyClinical implant dentistry and related research2025

Immediate Implant Placement and Provisionalization in the Aesthetic Zone Using a Digital Workflow: A 1-Year Prospective Case Series Study.

Vincent J J Donker, Gerry M Raghoebar, Arjan Vissink, Henny J A Meijer

Abstract readObservational Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Observational study in Clinical implant dentistry and related research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Vincent J J DonkerDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4302-9033
Gerry M RaghoebarDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3578-7141
Arjan VissinkDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2581-4361
Henny J A MeijerDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1702-6031

Funding

Nobel Biocare Services AG, Zürich, Switzerland 2019-1628
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionImmediate implant placement and provisionalization in the maxillary aesthetic zone necessitates meticulous treatment planning. The integration of intraoral scanning with cone beam computed tomography allows for three-dimensional prosthetic-driven planning of the implant. Additionally, it facilitates static computer-assisted implant surgery and prefabrication of a temporary restoration, enabling chairside restoration of the immediate implant. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical, aesthetic, radiographic, and patient-reported outcomes after immediate implant placement and restoration. MATERIALS AND

methodsIn a prospective case series, 30 patients with a failing tooth in the maxillary aesthetic zone were included and received immediate implant placement with a bone graft and a prefabricated temporary restoration. The definitive restoration was placed 3 months later. The clinical, aesthetic, radiographic, and patient-reported outcomes were collected prior to implant treatment, 6 weeks after the temporary restoration, and 1 month and 1 year after the definitive restoration.

resultsThe prefabricated temporary restoration could be placed in all patients. Three cases of early implant failure were observed (implant survival rate 90%); hence, 27 patients were evaluated after 1 year. The survival and success rates were 100% for the temporary and 100% and 96%, respectively, for the definitive restorations. Plaque, bleeding on probing, and peri-implant inflammation were absent in most cases. At the 1-year follow-up, the mean (SD) Pink Esthetic Score and White Esthetic Score (scale 0-20) was 15.4 (2.5). The mean (SD) marginal bone level change between implant placement and the 1-year follow-up was -0.18 mm (0.57) on the mesial side and -0.44 mm (1.23) on the distal side. The median buccal bone thickness remained stable after immediate implant placement and grafting. The mean (SD) patient satisfaction (scale 0-10) was 9.2 (0.8) at the 1-year evaluation.

conclusionThe digital workflow has the potential to enable the manufacture of prefabricated temporary restorations, leading to satisfactory clinical, aesthetic, radiographic, and patient-reported outcomes after immediate placement of single-tooth implants in the aesthetic zone. CLINICAL

trial registrationRegistered in the National Trial Register (NL8264).

Indexed as

Dental Restoration, TemporaryEsthetics, DentalImmediate Dental Implant LoadingAdultAgedCone-Beam Computed TomographyDental Implants, Single-ToothDental Restoration FailureFemaleHumansMaleMaxillaMiddle AgedProspective StudiesSurgery, Computer-AssistedWorkflowaesthetic zonecase seriesdigital workflowimmediate implant placementimmediate provisionalization

Identifiers

PMID40707170
PMCPMC12289460

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.