Late implant placement following ridge preservation versus early implant placement: A pilot randomized clinical trial for periodontally compromised non‐molar extraction sites

Aim To compare late implant placement following alveolar ridge preservation (LP/ARP) and early implantation (EP) in periodontally compromised non‐molar extraction sites with respect to soft tissue levels, aesthetics, and patient‐reported outcomes. Materials and methods Sixteen patients were randomly allocated to groups LP/ARP (n = 9) or EP (n = 7). Group LP/ARP received ARP using deproteinized bovine bone mineral containing 10% collagen and a native bilayer collagen membrane, and group EP received only extraction. Implant placement was performed 4–8 weeks post‐extraction in group EP and 4 months post‐alveolar ridge preservation in group LP/ARP. The soft tissue levels, pink/white esthetic scores, and periodontal parameters were evaluated at 1 year post‐loading. Patient's discomfort level was evaluated in terms of extraction/ARP and implant placement. Results No implant failure or biologic complications occurred. There was no statistically significant difference in the median change of the midfacial mucosal margin (0.03 for group LP/ARP, −0.19 mm for group EP) and the mesial/distal papilla (0.62/0.25 mm for group LP/ARP, 0.29/−0.5 mm for group EP), pink/white esthetic scores, periodontal parameters, and patient's discomfort between the two groups. Conclusion Both implant placement protocols led to comparable outcomes in soft tissue levels, periodontal parameters, and patient's discomfort level.