The aim of the present study was to conduct a systematic review of the literature to compare soft tissue aspects of immediate and delayed implant placement in esthetic areas. This review of literature was conducted in the following databases: MEDLINE (Pub Med), Lilacs, Scielo, EMBASE, and Cochrane...

The aim of the present study was to conduct a systematic review of the literature to compare soft tissue aspects of immediate and delayed implant placement in esthetic areas. This review of literature was conducted in the following databases: MEDLINE (Pub Med), Lilacs, Scielo, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). For those studies that met the inclusion/exclusion criteria, the results were analyzed and summarized according to the treatment protocol used for implant placement. The primary parameters taken into consideration were papilla level (PL) and marginal mucosa level (MML) around implants. Four randomized controlled trials (RCT) were selected for analysis, but all were deemed as being of poor quality according to quality assessment. No studies reported any statistically significant differences concerning the soft tissue esthetic parameters analyzed around immediate or delayed implants at any follow-up periods reported. However, PL results seemed to be more reliable than were MML results, due to the PL standardization of the method of analysis, which showed a tendency for poorer results around immediately placed implants. In conclusion, although the results are based on only a few poor quality RCTs, both treatment options for implant placement demonstrated similar outcomes in the esthetic area, especially when PL was considered

Fechado