Description:
<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:sec><jats:title>Aim</jats:title><jats:p>The objective of this randomized clinical trial was to investigate the influence of the time of implant placement (immediate vs. early) and the time of restoration (immediate vs. early) on esthetic outcome in maxillary anterior single implants.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Material and methods</jats:title><jats:p>Forty‐eight patients with a single failing incisor in the maxilla and a natural contralateral site were randomly distributed into four groups. Treatment variations affected the time of implant placement (immediate or early) as well as the time of restoration (immediate or early) – in detail, group 1a with immediate implant placement and immediate temporary restoration, group 1b with immediate implant placement and early restoration, group 2a with early implant placement and immediate temporary restoration, and group 2b with early implant placement and early restoration. All patients received the final prosthetic restoration 10–12 weeks after implant placement. Standardized photographs were taken eight months after tooth extraction. Five competent observers analyzed the esthetic outcome according to the <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">PES</jats:styled-content> after Fürhauser. For statistical analysis, the <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">K</jats:styled-content>ruskal–<jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">W</jats:styled-content>allis test and <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">D</jats:styled-content>unn's <jats:italic>post hoc</jats:italic> test were applied. Interobserver reliability was evaluated by <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">K</jats:styled-content>rippendorff's alpha.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results</jats:title><jats:p>The overall scores of the four treatment groups revealed <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">PES</jats:styled-content> values of 8.47 (<jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">SD</jats:styled-content> 2.08, group 1a), 7.93 (<jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">SD</jats:styled-content> 3.21, group 1b), 6.62 (<jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">SD</jats:styled-content> 3.24, group 2a), and 8.10 (<jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">SD</jats:styled-content> 3.25, group 2b). The differences between groups 2a and 1a and between groups 2a and 2b were statistically significant (<jats:italic>P</jats:italic> = 0.015 and <jats:italic>P</jats:italic> = 0.047). The single parameter analysis displayed a certain range of fluctuation and heterogeneity.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusions</jats:title><jats:p>Immediate implant placement and restoration appear to be a viable alternative to early implant placement if an experienced surgeon is entrusted with the implantation procedure.</jats:p></jats:sec>