Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 356–361 | Cite as

Buccal Plate Preservation with Immediate Implant Placement and Provisionalization: 5-Year Follow-Up Outcomes

  • Alfonso Caiazzo
  • Federico Brugnami
  • Francesco Galletti
  • Pushkar Mehra
Original Article



Despite socket preservation and/or immediate implant placement, resorption of the buccal plate after dental extraction continues to pose esthetic challenges to clinicians. Buccal plate preservation (BPP) is a technique that has been recently proposed with an aim to reduce the incidence of such resorption. This study was conducted to assess the long-term efficacy of BPP in maintaining the thickness of the buccal cortical plate after immediate implant insertion and provisionalization.

Materials and Methods

Ten consecutive patients were included in this study. Each patient underwent extraction of a non-restorable tooth, BPPPBPP, single immediate implant placement and immediate provisionalization. Cone beam CT scans were taken 3 months after surgery (T1) and 5 years after surgery (T2) to evaluate the effectiveness and longevity of the BPPPBPP technique in maintaining the augmented bone width. Two distinct measurements were taken for bone evaluation: (a) R1: 1 mm apical to the implant platform and (b) R2: 5 mm apical to the implant platform. The long axis of the implant was used as a fixed reference. Statistical test analysis was conducted using the SPSS software. Student’s t test was used to assess statistical significance, and a p value of < 0.05 was considered significant.


There were six females and four males in the study. The mean age of the sample was 37.6 years (range 23–64 years). At T1, the mean bone thickness of the buccal plate was found to be 2.36 mm at R1 (range: 1.9–3.1), and 2.23 at R2 (range: 1.9–3). At the T2 interval, the mean thickness of the plate was 2.28 mm at R1 (range: 1.7–3) and 2.18 at R2 (range: 1.9–3). The differences in these mean values were not statistically significant.


BPPPBPP is an effective means for augmentation and maintenance of the buccal cortical plate around an immediately placed and provisionalized dental implant. It is a viable alternative to socket preservation with the added benefit that it allows for immediate implant placement.


Immediate Implant Socket Preservation Buccal Plate Preservation Socket healing Post-extraction Implant Immediate Temporary 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. 1.
    Cardaropoli G, Araújo M, Lindhe J (2003) Dynamics of bone tissue formation in tooth extraction sites. An experimental study in dogs. J Clin Periodontol 30:809CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Araújo MG, Lindhe J (2005) Dimensional ridge alterations following tooth extraction. An experimental study in the dog. J Clin Periodontol 32:212CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mecall RA, Rosenfeld AL (1991) Influence of residual ridge resorption patterns on implant fixture placement and tooth position. Int J Periodontics Restor Dent 11:8Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Araújo M, Sukekava F, Wennstrom J, Lindhe J (2005) Ridge alterations following implant placement in fresh extraction sockets: an experimental study in the dog. J Clin Periodontol 32:645CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schropp L, Kostopoulos L, Wenzel A (2003) Bone healing following immediate versus delayed placement of titanium implants into extraction socket: a prospective clinical study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 18:189PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    De Risi V, Clementini M, Vittorini G, Mannocci A, De Sanctis M (2015) Alveolar ridge preservation techniques: a systematic review and meta-analysis of histological and histomorphometrical data. Clin Oral Implants Res 26:50CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Caiazzo A, Brugnami F, Mehra P (2010) Buccal plate augmentation: a new alternative to socket preservation. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 68:2503CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Caiazzo A, Brugnami F, Mehra P (2013) Buccal plate preservation with immediate post-extraction implant placement and provisionalization: preliminary results of a new technique. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 42:666CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lund H, Gröndahl K, Gröndahl HG (2010) Cone beam computed tomography for assessment of root length and marginal bone level during orthodontic treatment. Angle Orthod 80:466CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Evans CDJ, Chen ST (2008) Esthetic outcomes of immediate implant placements. Clin Oral Implants Res 19:73PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brugnami F, Caiazzo A (2011) Efficacy evaluation of a new buccal bone plate preservation technique: a pilot study. Int J Periodontics Restor Dent 31:67Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons of India 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alfonso Caiazzo
    • 1
    • 2
  • Federico Brugnami
    • 3
  • Francesco Galletti
    • 4
  • Pushkar Mehra
    • 2
  1. 1.Private Practice in Oral SurgerySalernoItaly
  2. 2.Department of Oral and Maxillofacial SurgeryBoston UniversityBostonUSA
  3. 3.Private Practice in PeriodonticsRomeItaly
  4. 4.Private Practice in DentistryPerugiaItaly

Personalised recommendations