Clinical Outcomes of Immediate, Early, and Delayed Implant Placement in the Esthetic Zone: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Purpose: To assess the impact of implant placement at different time intervals on the esthetic and clinical outcomes in the esthetic zone.
Materials and Methods: A literature screening was conducted in PubMed (MEDLINE), ScienceDirect, and Cochrane databases. Relevant articles were included according to selection criteria and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Data was collected from studies published from 2017 to 2022 in English.
Results: Nine articles were included, in which a total of 495 implants were placed; 250 of the implants were immediate, 109 were early, and 136 were delayed. Immediate implant placement (IIP) showed no statistically significant difference in Pink Esthetic Score (PES) compared with delayed implant placement (DIP). IIP showed significantly higher PES in comparison with early implant placement (EIP) (mean difference [MD] &#61; -0.76; 95% CI &#61; -1.50 to -0.02; P &#61; .04). The probing depth (PD) was considerably greater for immediate implants than for delayed implants (MD &#61; -0.62; 95% CI &#61; -1.05 to -0.18; P &#61; .005), and the Plaque Index (PI) was statistically greater for early implants compared with immediate implants (MD &#61; 0.15; 95% CI &#61; 0.11 to 0.19; P < .00001). All other soft tissue outcomes showed equal results. The marginal bone loss (MBL) was statistically higher in early implants compared with immediate implants (MD &#61; 0.09; 95% CI &#61; 0.02 to 0.16; P &#61; .02).
Conclusions: IIP had significantly superior PES, MBL, and PI results when compared with EIP. The PD was significantly higher for immediate implants compared with delayed implants. All other outcomes showed no significant difference between the three implant groups. It is important to highlight the limitations of this review such as the small number of studies included and the few reports on esthetic indices.