AimTo assess the feasibility of immediate (IIP), early (EIP) and delayed implant placement (DIP) for single tooth replacement in the premaxilla on the basis of the complete indication area of each approach in routine practice.Materials and MethodsData from 100 patients (59 women, 41 men, all Caucasians) aged between 19 and 81 years old (mean age 51.71) who had been consecutively treated with a single implant in the premaxilla (13–23) in one private periodontal practice were retrospectively collected. Demographic data, diagnostic information and linear measurements were extracted from patient files and CBCTs. The feasibility of IIP, EIP and DIP was assessed for all cases by both authors, based on the following criteria: availability of apical bone, position of the tooth in relation to the morphology of the alveolar process, buccal bone morphology and presence of midfacial recession. The reasons for not being able to perform an approach, and the viable alternatives for each approach were secondary outcomes. DIP was considered to have been preceded by alveolar ridge preservation (ARP).ResultsNinety‐two patients could be treated by means of IIP, EIP or DIP. In eight patients none of these approaches were possible as they required bone augmentation prior to implant placement. Fifty‐two patients (95% CI: 42%–62%) could by treated with IIP, 58 (95% CI: 48%–67%) with EIP and 88 (95% CI: 80%–93%) with DIP. The feasibility proportions of IIP and EIP were significantly lower than the one of DIP (p < 0.001). All patients who could be treated with IIP could also be treated with EIP or DIP. Lack of apical bone for implant anchorage was the main reason for not being able to perform IIP and EIP. Complete loss of the buccal bone wall and the need for bone augmentation prior to implant placement were the reasons for not being able to perform DIP.ConclusionFrom the results of this retrospective CBCT analysis, DIP is nearly always possible in contrast to IIP and EIP. Therefore, and since it is much easier than IIP and EIP, inexperienced clinicians should mainly focus on ARP and DIP in clinical practice deferring IIP and EIP until more surgical skills have been acquired.

中文翻译：

---

前上颌单牙即刻、早期和延迟种植体种植的可行性：100 例锥形束计算机断层扫描回顾性研究


目的根据常规实践中每种入路的完整适应症区域，评估即刻种植（IIP）、早期种植（EIP）和延迟种植种植（DIP）前颌单牙种植的可行性。材料与方法来自100名患者的数据（回顾性收集了 59 名女性、41 名男性（均为白种人），年龄在 19 岁至 81 岁之间（平均年龄 51.71 岁），他们在一家私人牙周诊所连续接受过前上颌骨单种植体（13-23 岁）治疗。从患者档案和 CBCT 中提取人口统计数据、诊断信息和线性测量结果。两位作者根据以下标准对所有病例的 IIP、EIP 和 DIP 的可行性进行了评估：根尖骨的可用性、牙齿相对于牙槽突形态的位置、颊骨形态以及中面后退的存在。无法执行某种方法的原因以及每种方法的可行替代方案是次要结果。认为DIP之前进行了牙槽嵴保留（ARP）。结果92例患者可以通过IIP、EIP或DIP进行治疗。在八名患者中，这些方法均不可行，因为他们需要在种植体植入之前进行骨增量。 52 名患者 (95% CI: 42%–62%) 可以接受 IIP 治疗，58 名患者 (95% CI: 48%–67%) 可以接受 EIP 治疗，88 名患者 (95% CI: 80%–93%) 可以接受 DIP 治疗。 IIP 和 EIP 的可行性比例显着低于 DIP (p < 0.001)。所有可以接受 IIP 治疗的患者也可以接受 EIP 或 DIP 治疗。缺乏用于种植体支抗的根尖骨是无法进行 IIP 和 EIP 的主要原因。 颊骨壁完全丧失以及种植体植入前需要进行骨增量是无法进行 DIP 的原因。 结论 从回顾性 CBCT 分析的结果来看，与 IIP 和 EIP 相比，DIP 几乎总是可行的。因此，由于它比 IIP 和 EIP 容易得多，缺乏经验的临床医生在临床实践中应主要关注 ARP 和 DIP，推迟 IIP 和 EIP，直到掌握更多的手术技能。