Background: The increase in soft tissue (ST) around implants can benefit peri-implant health and aesthetic results. The objective was to compare the gingival and esthetic health benefits of immediate implant placement (IIP) with simultaneous or delayed connective tissue graft (CTG) compared to IIP without CTG. Methods: A systematic review was carried out by two reviewers in Medline-Pubmed, Scopus, and Cochrane. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) were considered. Randomized Clinical Trials (RCTs) that were published between April 2017 and February 2024 were used. Studies that analyzed the performance of a simultaneous or deferred CTG after the placement of an implant in the aesthetic zone, with or without immediate provisionalization, without previous regeneration, with a follow-up of 6 months, and that were performed in humans were included. Results: Quantitative analysis was performed using data provided by the RCTs. The five RCTs that were selected analyzed a total “n” of 245 subjects who met the inclusion criteria and focused on the subject of the study. In the quantitative analysis, four RCTs were included. The studies evaluated buccal gingiva levels when placing the IIP with and without CTG, obtaining a mean buccal gingiva level difference of 0.09 mm (95% CI: −0.54 to 0.72, p = 0.05), statistically not significant, but with a favorable trend. Conclusions: The use of CTG associated with the II can maintain the gum level but not increase the volume. CTG is favorable for achieving successful esthetic results when immediate placement of an implant with a provisional prosthesis is planned.

The vertical position concerning the bone in which the implants are placed has been related as one of the factors causing marginal bone loss. The objective of this study was to evaluate the bone loss that occurs before prosthetic loading around tapered internal connection (CIC) implants placed at the crestal (C) and subcrestal (S) levels. Method: A randomized clinical trial (RCT) was carried out, with a sample size of 62 implants placed in 27 patients who underwent radiological controls on the day of placement, at one month, and at 4 months, and stability was measured by resonance frequency analysis (RFA) on three occasions. Results: Bone loss in implants C and S from the time of placement (T0) and the month after (T1) was not significant (p = 0.54) (C = 0.19 mm and S = 0.15 mm). The difference between one month (T1) and four months (T2) (C = 0.17 mm and S = 0.22 mm) was not significant either (p = 0.26). The difference between the day of placement (T0) and the third and last measurement (T2) was almost null (p = 0.94) (C = 0.35 mm and S = 0.36). The overall success rate of the implants was 97.8%. The stability of the implants measured with RFA went from 70.60 (T0) to 73.16 (T1) and 74.52 (T2). Conclusions: No significant differences were found in the bone loss for implants placed at the C and S levels. The millimeters of bone loss detected in both vertical positions did not have a significant impact on the stability of the implants.