It has been demonstrated that utilizing dental implants to replace lost teeth is a predictable clinical choice. Promising outcomes of immediate implant insertion in conjunction with immediate loading/provisionalization (Type 1A implant protocol according to Gallucci et al has been reported to provide major benefits in terms of better esthetic and psychosocial impacts, shorter treatment duration, minimal surgical interventions and preservation of peri-implant bone and soft tissue.
However, because of technically sensitive and sophisticated surgery required for Type 1A protocol, high risk of early implant failure was noticed particularly in conditions that might complicate that protocol as deficient facial bone plate, soft tissues deficiencies and thin gingival phenotype. Furthermore, those conditions also were found to be responsible for midfacial mucosal recession (MFMR), papillary recession and resorption of facial plate that deteriorates the clinical, radiological, and esthetic outcomes of Type 1A protocol. Consequently, alternate approaches would be suggested to improve the clinical and esthetic concerns associated with immediate implantation and loading such as buccal gap grafting, guided bone regeneration and socket shield approach.
In order to maintain the facial bone plate for prompt Type 1A protocol in esthetic zone, the SSA has been developed by Hürzeler et al. in 2010 as a potential therapeutic approach through maintaining the facial portion of the root and thus preserving the periodontal ligament and its vascularity that nourishes the tooth's bundle bone. The FSS functions as a natural barrier that prevents buccal bone resorption and enhances tissue contouring, both of which contribute to the achievement of predictable esthetic outcomes. Additionally, the FSS serves as a guide to ensure the implant is positioned correctly. SSA in conjunction with immediate loading reduces the frequency of clinical sessions and reduces the necessity for both soft and hard tissue grafts.
It has been recommended to palatally insert the implants in extraction sockets with at least 2 mm jumping gap between the fixture and the FSS. Significantly, this gap denotes the future buccal bone that will directly contribute to the buccal contour and impact the soft tissue levels. For jumping gaps smaller than 2 mm, bone heals spontaneously, while gaps bigger than 2 mm are advised to be augmented.
AWTG is obviously very advantageous as it exhibits superior osteoconductive and osteoinductive capacity with high biocompatibility and comparable physico-chemical characteristics to autogenous bones. AWTG was successfully employed for augmenting of peri-implant bone defects, with excellent clinical and radiographic outcomes. Similarly, both AWTG and autogenous demineralized dentin graft were equally effective at reducing dimensional losses in alveolar ridge preservation. The production of demineralized dentin is time-consuming, cost-intensive and complicated, which restricts its widespread use in clinics.
In the light of this, the current study was conducted to assess and compare the effectiveness of AWTG versus xenograft for augmenting the FSS/fixture jumping gap around immediately placed implants using SSA with immediate temporization in the maxillary esthetic zone.
To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to use AWTG for filling the peri-implant jumping gap following SSA and highlight its impact on peri-implant soft and hard tissue parameters compared to xenograft.
