Background: The preservation of bone volume immediately after tooth removal might be necessary to optimize the success of implant placement in terms of esthetics and function. The objectives of this randomized clinical trial were two‐fold: 1) to compare the bone dimensional changes following tooth extraction with extraction plus ridge preservation using corticocancellous porcine bone and a collagen membrane; and 2) to analyze and compare histologic and histomorphometric aspects of the extraction‐alone sites to the grafted sites.Methods: Forty subjects who required tooth extraction and implant placement were enrolled in this study. Using a computer‐generated randomization list, the subjects were randomly assigned to the control group (EXT; extraction alone) or to the test group (RP; ridge‐preservation procedure with corticocancellous porcine bone and collagen membrane). The following parameters were assessed immediately after extraction and 7 months prior to implant placement: plaque index, gingival index, bleeding on probing, horizontal ridge width, and vertical ridge changes. A bone biopsy was taken from the control and test sites 7 months after the surgical treatment. Histologic and histomorphometric analyses were also performed.Results: A significantly greater horizontal reabsorption was observed at EXT sites (4.3 ± 0.8 mm) compared to RP sites (2.5 ± 1.2 mm). The ridge height reduction at the buccal side was 3.6 ± 1.5 mm for the extraction‐alone group, whereas it was 0.7 ± 1.4 mm for the ridge‐preservation group. Moreover, the vertical change at the lingual sites was 0.4 mm in the ridge‐preservation group and 3 mm in the extraction‐alone group. Forty biopsies were harvested from the experimental sites (test and control sites). The biopsies harvested from the grafted sites revealed the presence of trabecular bone, which was highly mineralized and well structured. Particles of the grafted material could be identified in all samples. The bone formed in the control sites was also well structured with a minor percentage of mineralized bone. The amount of connective tissue was significantly higher in the extraction‐alone group than in the ridge‐preservation group.Conclusions: The ridge‐preservation approach using porcine bone in combination with collagen membrane significantly limited the resorption of hard tissue ridge after tooth extraction compared to extraction alone. Furthermore, the histologic analysis showed a significantly higher percentage of trabecular bone and total mineralized tissue in ridge‐preservation sites compared to extraction‐alone sites 7 months after tooth removal.

Background: Implants placed immediately after tooth extraction offer several advantages, but many authors have reported problems in filling the residual gap between the implant and the socket walls. Barrier and grafting techniques have been tested and yield varying results, so it has been suggested that the timing of implant placement may be important for success. The aim of this study was to analyze bone healing and coronal bone remodeling around 35 implants, 20 placed immediately after tooth removal and 15 placed 6 to 8 weeks after extraction.Methods: All the implants were submerged and placed within the alveoli confines, leaving circumferential defects because the implants did not contact the bone at their coronal aspects; stabilization was achieved in the bone apically. After implant placement the mean distance from buccal bone to lingual bone was 10 mm (SD 1.522) for immediate implants and 8.86 mm (SD 2.356) for delayed implants. No membrane or filling materials were used. Primary flap closure was accomplished in all cases.Results: At second‐stage surgery all peri‐implant defects were filled, and the mean distance from buccal bone to lingual bone was 8.1 mm (SD 1.334) for immediate implants and 5.8 mm (SD 1.265) for delayed implants. This pattern of coronal bone remodeling, showing a narrowing of the bucco‐lingual width, was clinically similar for the two groups, although it should be noted that the delayed implants exhibited smaller bucco‐lingual bone width already at the first measurement: it can be speculated that early remodeling may start immediately after tooth extraction and continue, non‐uniformly, even after delayed implant placement.Conclusions: This study suggests that circumferential defects could heal clinically without any guided bone regeneration (GBR) in both experimental groups, and that the procedure was virtually free from complications in the postoperative period, probably because of the absence of barrier membranes and/or grafting materials. Histologically, periimplant defects of over 1.5 mm heal by connective tissue apposition, rather than by direct bone‐to‐implant contact, but clinically this healing may be very successful. No histological analysis was carried out in the present study, but even the largest residual gaps were filled with hard tissue that could not be probed. Thus, such outcomes can be considered clinically successful. The different rate of bone remodeling around immediate or delayed implants could have implications for the preferred timing of implant placement in sites of high esthetic concern. J Periodontol 2004;75:1605‐1612.

Background: Implants placed immediately after tooth extraction have shown high percentages of clinical success. Few studies in the scientific literature have observed the horizontal bone remodeling in the buccallingual direction after immediate placement of implants. The aim of this study was to analyze bone healing and coronal bone remodeling around 15 implants placed immediately after tooth removal without the use of guided bone regeneration (GBR) techniques.Methods: Ten patients received a total of 15 implants placed immediately after removal of 15 single‐rooted teeth. All implants were placed within the alveolar confines, limiting, in most cases, small periimplant bone defects. After implant placement, the distance from the buccal to lingual bone plate was measured. No membranes or filling materials were used. Primary flap closure was performed in all cases.Results: At second‐stage surgery, all peri‐implant defects were completely filled and the distance from buccal to lingual bone was measured again. The pattern of bone healing around the neck of immediate implants showed an absence of peri‐implant defects and a narrowing of bone crest width in a buccal‐lingual direction. The mean distance between buccal bone and lingual bone at the time of implant placement was 10.5 mm (±1.52) and, at second‐stage surgery, 6.8 mm (±1.33).Conclusions: The coronal bone remodeling around immediate implants showed a healing pattern with new bone apposition around the neck of the implants and, at the same time, bone resorption with horizontal width reduction of the bone ridge. The small periimplant bone defects were completely healed without the use of GBR procedures. An absence of complications during the healing period was also observed, probably due to the absence of barrier membranes and grafting materials. J Periodontol 2003;74:268‐273.