Immediate implant placement with an immediate interim restoration is a well-established protocol. Nevertheless, a consensus regarding the impact of immediate interim restoration on peri-implant tissues around single dental implants is lacking. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to address the research question: “Does the placement of an immediate interim restoration influence the mid-facial mucosal (MFM) marginal and interdental papilla (IDP) levels around single dental implants placed in the anterior esthetic region by using an immediate implant placement protocol?” A comprehensive literature search was made in the Medline/PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, and Science Direct electronic databases for articles published in English evaluating the impact of immediate interim restoration on peri-implant tissues around single dental implants in the anterior esthetic region. The primary outcomes assessed were changes in the MFM marginal and IDP levels. Additional outcomes were marginal bone (MB) loss, esthetic outcomes involving the pink and white esthetic scores (PES and WES), implant survival rates, and patient reported outcome measures (PROMs). The risk of bias assessment was performed by using the RoB 2 tool for randomized trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for nonrandomized studies. Meta-analysis was performed by using random and fixed effects model (α=.05) in the RevMan software program. Sixteen studies were included that analyzed 836 single dental implants involving 823 patients. The meta-analysis showed no significant differences in implants with and without interim restoration in terms of MFM marginal level (MD=0.01; 95% CI=−1.23 to 1.25; =.98), mesial IDP level (MD=0.12; 95% CI=−0.23 to 0.47; =.50), distal IDP level (MD=0.20; 95% CI=−0.40 to 0.79; =.52), and MB loss (MD=0.01; 95% CI=−0.42 to 0.43; =.97). The systematic analysis for survival rates determined no notable difference in implants with or without an interim restoration. However, the esthetic outcomes and PROMs substantially improved with immediate interim restorations. The RoB 2 tool showed a moderate to low risk of bias, and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale indicated high-quality studies. After a 12-month follow-up, immediate interim restoration had no significant impact on peri-implant soft (MFM marginal and IDP levels) and hard tissues (MB loss) around immediately placed single dental implants. Nevertheless, additional well-designed and well-implemented clinical trials with long-term follow-up periods are needed to provide more precise evidence-based recommendations.

中文翻译：

---

立即临时修复对美学区域立即植入的单个牙种植体周围种植体周围组织的影响：系统评价和荟萃分析

即刻种植体植入并立即进行临时修复是一项行之有效的方案。然而，关于立即临时修复对单个牙种植体周围种植体周围组织的影响尚缺乏共识。本系统回顾和荟萃分析的目的是解决以下研究问题：“立即临时修复体的放置是否会影响种植体中单个牙种植体周围的中面粘膜 (MFM) 边缘和牙间乳头 (IDP) 水平？通过使用即刻种植体植入方案来改变前牙美学区域？” 在 Medline/PubMed、Scopus、Cochrane 和 Science Direct 电子数据库中进行了全面的文献检索，查找以英文发表的文章，评估立即临时修复对前牙美学区域单个牙种植体周围种植体周围组织的影响。评估的主要结果是 MFM 边际和 IDP 水平的变化。其他结果包括边缘骨 (MB) 损失、涉及粉色和白色美学评分（PES 和 WES）的美学结果、种植体存活率和患者报告结果测量 (PROM)。偏倚风险评估使用 RoB 2 工具进行随机试验，使用纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表进行非随机研究。在RevMan软件程序中使用随机和固定效应模型（α=.05）进行荟萃分析。纳入的 16 项研究分析了涉及 823 名患者的 836 个单一牙种植体。荟萃分析显示，有或没有临时修复体的种植体在 MFM 边缘水平（MD=0.01；95% CI=-1.23 至 1.25；=.98）、近中 IDP 水平（MD=0.12；95%）方面没有显着差异。 CI=-0.23 至 0.47；=.50）、远端 IDP 水平（MD=0.20；95% CI=-0.40 至 0.79；=.52）和 MB 丢失（MD=0.01；95% CI=-0.42 至 0.43） ；=.97)。对存活率的系统分析表明，有或没有临时修复体的种植体没有显着差异。然而，立即进行临时修复后，美学效果和 PROM 得到了显着改善。RoB 2 工具显示出中度至低度的偏倚风险，纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表表明了高质量的研究。经过 12 个月的随访后，立即进行临时修复对立即植入的单个牙种植体周围的种植体周围软组织（MFM 边缘和 IDP 水平）和硬组织（MB 损失）没有显着影响。尽管如此，还需要进行额外的精心设计和良好实施的临床试验以及长期随访，以提供更精确的基于证据的建议。