Caroliene Meijndert

93 Alvoalar ridge preservation in defect sockets in the maxillary aesthetic zone Zuiderveld et al. (2019). It is remarkable that PES was rated lower than the WES by the professional although mucosa was better evalued than the crown by the patients. This is probably due to the fact that professionals rate other items as important than patients. In both our and Zuiderveld’s study (2018) patients are more satisfied with the end result than the professional observers. This phenomenon has been recorded before, showing little correlation between the professional’s opinion and the patient’s opinion about the aesthetics (Meijndert et al., 2007). Hence, it is not justified to leave out one of them in evaluating the aesthetic outcome. Nonetheless, the overall satisfaction with the implant restorations was high for both patient and professional. As is in accordance with other reports on single implants in the aesthetic zone (Slagter et al., 2016; Zuiderveld et al., 2018). The question is if peri-implant bone level and midbuccal mucosa level will remain stable in sites in which alveolar ridge preservation has been performed. The afore mentioned study by Eghbali et al. (2018) also presented 5-year results and reported a peri-implant bone loss of 0.47mm which is remarkably stable compared to 1 year. Next to this, only a small extra recession, being 0.07 mm, of the midbuccal mucosa level took place. If the implant system in the present study acts the same as the one used in the study of Eghbali et al. (2018), prognosis is good towards 5 years results. However, despite both implant systems are tapered, one cannot automatically assume that both results will be the same. Both implants systems have their specific characteristics and surface topography. Therefore, it is worthwhile to extend the follow-up time of the present study to at least 5 years. Conclusion Within the limitations of this case series, it can be concluded that the Straumann Bone Level Tapered implant system, applied in the maxillary aesthetic region after alveolar ridge preservation and in combination with immediate provisionalization, is accompanied with a high survival rate, stable marginal bone levels and soft tissue levels, good aesthetic outcomes and high patient satisfaction one year after implant placement. 5