Objectives: The primary objective of this systematic review was to compare IIP in intact versus non-intact sockets in terms of buccal bone thickness. Methods: Two independent reviewers carried out an electronic literature search in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane databases as well as a manual search to identify eligible clinical studies up to June 2024. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, and case series on intact and/or non-intact sockets were included for analysis. The primary outcome was buccal bone thickness (BBT). Secondary outcomes were vertical midfacial soft tissue level change, pink esthetic score (PES), implant survival and complications. This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Results: After screening 1001 unique titles and conducting manual searches, 20 articles reporting on 525 implants (intact: 265; non-intact: 260) in the anterior maxilla with a follow-up of up to 120 months were selected. The overall study quality was low, especially for non-intact sockets since only two RCTs could be found, and none demonstrated a low risk of bias. Meta-analyses were not feasible due to a lack of direct comparisons, and heterogeneity in terms of surgical approach, soft tissue handling, and restorative approach. BBT ranged between 1.10 and 3.18 mm (intact) and 1.18 and 3 mm (non-intact). Vertical midfacial soft tissue level change ranged between −0.13 and −0.58 mm (intact) and −0.03 and −0.59 mm (non-intact). Pink esthetic scores ranged between 10.48 and 12.80 (intact) and 9.25 and 12.43 (non-intact). Implant survival exceeded 90% in all studies and was 100% in the vast majority of the studies. Conclusions: This systematic review suggests a similar outcome of IIP in intact and non-intact sockets. However, the overall low study quality, a lack of direct comparisons, and heterogeneity rendered the comparison highly biased. Future studies should be conducted to establish an evidence-based treatment approach for IIP in non-intact sockets.