ObjectiveTo systematically review the implant survival and postoperative aesthetics of immediate versus delayed implant treatment in the anterior maxilla regions.MethodsWe searched databases including PubMed, The Cochrane Library, EMbase, CBM, CNKI and WanFang Data from inception to April 2017, to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies on immediate implant and delayed implant in the anterior teeth areas. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Then, RevMan 5.3 software was used to perform meta-analysis.ResultsA total of 4 RCTs and 12 retrospective cohort studies involving 1 316 implants were finally included. The results of meta-analysis showed that: there was no significant difference between two groups in retention rate (RCT: RR=0.99, 95%CI 0.97 to 1.02, P=0.70; retrospective cohort study: RR=0.99, 95%CI 0.96 to 1.02, P=0.54), the implant stability of permanent restoration for 4 months (MD=0.82, 95%CI –0.11 to 1.76, P=0.08), alveolar bone resorption of long-term permanent crown restoration (12 months: RCT: MD=0.06, 95%CI –0.35 to 0.47, P=0.79; retrospective cohort study: MD=–0.27, 95%CI –0.57 to 0.03, P=0.07; 24 months: retrospective cohort study MD=–0.09, 95%CI –0.18 to 0.00, P=0.05), respectively. The immediate implant group was superior to the control group in alveolar bone resorption of short-term permanent crown restoration (3 months: MD=–0.08, 95%CI –0.13 to –0.04, P=0.000 1; 6 months: MD=–0.23, 95%CI –0.38 to –0.07, P=0.004). The PES score in the immediate implant group was higher than that in the delayed implant group(MD=1.12, 95%CI 0.11 to 2.13, P=0.03).ConclusionsCurrent evidence shows that both immediate and delayed implant procedures have similar outcomes in terms of implant retention, long-term stability and long-term alveolar bone resorption of the implants in the anterior maxilla regions, but the former procedure possesses better short-term reduction of alveolar bone absorption and postoperative gingival aesthetics. Furthermore, due to the limited quality and quantity of the included studies, more large-scale and high-quality studies are needed to verify the above conclusions.