Clinical, Radiological, and Aesthetic Outcomes after Placement of a Bioactive-Surfaced Implant with Immediate or Delayed Loading in the Anterior Maxilla: 1-Year Retrospective Follow-Up Study

Background: Dental implants have become the standard for replacing missing teeth. However, patients’ demands shorter treatment times and desire aesthetics in their results can complicate rehabilitation process, particularly when poor-quality bone is involved. In order to address these challenges, new methods of treating implant surfaces been introduced. These aim make superhydrophilic bioactive, enhancing functionality interactions with surrounding tissues. Aim: The study was retrospectively examine efficacy a bioactive edentulous maxillary anterior area. also aimed evaluate whether this improved surface, by osseointegration processes, could serve as factor speeding up loading protocols. Materials Methods: For retrospective study, total 13 were included: 6 delayed restored 7 immediately loaded placed Clinical, radiographic, esthetic outcomes assessed. Baseline measurements insertion torque value (ITV) stability quotient (ISQ) recorded all implants. early-loaded group, taken 30 days (t30) 45 (t45) after placement monitor changes over time. Marginal loss (MBL) calculated according marginal level on intraoral X-rays at two different time points: baseline one year loading. To results, pink score (PES) white (WES) evaluation, photographs Results: A restored, mean ITV 32.29 ± 9.01 Ncm ISQ 72.71 2.81. environment density 410.00 194.42 HU. On other hand, had 28.50 3.27 Ncm, an 67.92 8.43, 607.50 140.83 PES WES 1 were, respectively, 8.71 1.89 8.57 0.79 immediate 8.33 1.36 9.17 1.33 delayed-loaded At 12 months loading, group MBL 0.29 mm, while 0.33 0.25. No statistically significant differences between groups found any evaluated outcomes. Conclusions: Despite limitations obtained may support use surface implant-prosthetic critical protocols satisfactory results.