• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.4 no.1
• /
• pp.52-56
• /
• 2012

Conventional implant protocols required a load-free healing period of three to six months between placement and functional loading of the implants. Many efforts have been made to minimize the duration of treatment time. Several literatures have documented immediate function with provisional or definitive prosthesis within a week of the placement in response to these demands. In addition, immediate implant placement has advantages such as shortened treatment time and preservation of soft tissue architectures. This article presents immediate implant placement into fresh extraction sockets followed by functional immediate loading with provisional prosthesis on canine and premolars for a patient having canine protected occlusion.

• The Journal of the Korean dental association
• /
• v.55 no.10
• /
• pp.716-724
• /
• 2017

Past literatures stressed that when a gap occurred between smooth surface implant and alveolar bone, osseointegration was unsatisfactory at histologic examination regardless of clinical findings. Accordingly, standard surgical approach in the early days of implant surgery was to place the implant after all gap was healed. However, Botticelli et al.(2004) reported high degree of osseointegration at the gap with SLA surface implant. From then, the era of immediate implantation has begun because SLA surface implant make gap healing possible. There are two main disadvantages of immediate implantation: (1) surgical technique is sensitive for primary implant stability, (2) Implant placement at the accurate position that predicts external change of extraction wound is required. Immediate implantation has outstanding advantages in all perspectives except for the above-mentioned disadvantages. Therefore, it would be unwise to abandon the option of immediate implantation simply due to surgical difficulties. The purpose of this paper is to describe the necessity of immediate implantation and to present scientific evidence for immediate implantation and accurate implant position by literature review.

• Journal of Yeungnam Medical Science
• /
• v.20 no.1
• /
• pp.45-52
• /
• 2003

Background: Immediate implant placement has become an acceptable treatment for the edentulous area. The advantages of the immediate implant placement include considerable decrease in time from tooth extraction to placement of the finial prosthesis, fewer surgical procedures, and better acceptance of the overall treatment plans. But the success is dependent on the quantity and quality of the extraction socket. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the success of the immediate implant placement. Materials and Methods: Twenty-one sites in 16 patients were selected for the evaluation of the immediate implant placement. All of the cases were followed using clinical and radiographic examinations. Criteria of success were the absence of peri-implant radiolucency, mobility, and persistent pain or sign of infection. Results: Of the 21 implants, 13 implants have been succeeded. Of the 13 implants, 10 implants were replaced for the periodontal disease and 3 implants were replaced for the trauma. Conclusion: The criteria of the success in immediate implant placement are as follows. 1) Implants placed into fresh extraction sockets have a high rate of survival. 2) Implant should be placed as close as possible to the alveolar crest. 3) Implant placed into available bone beyond the apex have a high success rate.

• Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science
• /
• v.37 no.3
• /
• pp.637-646
• /
• 2007

Implants placed immediately after tooth extraction have been shown to be a successfully predictable treatment modality. Several clinical papers suggest that placing implants immediately after tooth extraction may provide some advantages: reduction of the number of surgical procedures or patient visits, preservation of the dimensions of alveolar ridge, and shortening of the interval between the removal of the tooth and the insertion of the implant supported restoration. In this case report, three patients received single immediate implant placements to replace a maxillary anterior tooth at the time of extraction. As the three cases were somewhat different, treatment protocols had to be modified as follows: Case 1. Immediate implant placement with healing abutment connection. Case 2. Immediate implant placement with immediate provisionalization. Case 3. Immediate implant placement with Guided Bone Regeneration(GBR). Every implant of these cases was placed in proper position buccolingually, mesiodistally and apicocoronally, The procedures following implantation such as immediate provisionalization and GBR were free of problem. Healing of each case was uneventful. In all cases, treatment outcomes were mostly satisfactory and the results maintained during follow-up periods. However, one case (Case 3) showed some papilla loss due to failure in delicate soft tissue handling during surgery. This papilla loss was compromised by prosthetic means. In conclusion, immediate implant placement in the fresh extraction socket can be a valid and successful option of treatment in aesthetic area. Moreover, this treatment protocol seems to maintain the preexisting architecture of soft and hard tissues in most cases.

• The Journal of the Korean dental association
• /
• v.58 no.9
• /
• pp.564-572
• /
• 2020

Implant treatment has long been established as the main stream for the recovery of lost teeth. Implant therapy, which began to be practiced under the concept of osseointegration, was performed on the completely healed bone, but implant placement immediately after extraction, which began to be introduced in the 1970s, began to become a widely used treatment modality since the 2000s. However, as with all other procedures, immediate implant placement is not omnipotent. If you are obsessed with the obsession that you need to provide quicker implant treatment to the patients, and if you do it as if you are being chased by time, it is the immediate implant placement that can lead to various embarrassing situations. In this article, to reduce complications, the author will look at some issues that need to be considered when placing implants immediately after extraction.

• The Journal of the Korean dental association
• /
• v.41 no.8 s.411
• /
• pp.566-571
• /
• 2003

Now a days, immediate implant placement: is becoming one of the popular method. But for the success of this method in implant surgery, initial stability and establishment of sufficient blood supply to the implant placement: areas are very important. Buccal Fat Pad(BFP) has favorable characteristics for the reconstruction of maxillary hard &soft tissue defects. So it has been used for reconstruction of posterior maxillary area or closure of oro-antral area. Using BFP, we could get primary tissue closure without extensive releasing incision during implant surgery and adequate attached gingival after healing of the surgical area. So We report clinical usefulness of BFG during immediate important placement in the posterior maxillary area

• Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science
• /
• v.39 no.1
• /
• pp.71-76
• /
• 2009

Purpose: Many researches showed loss of alveolar bone in fresh extraction socket and even in case of immediate implant placement. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of non-resorbable barrier membrane on the change of buccal and lingual alveolar bone in immediate implant placement into periapically infected extraction sockets. Materials and methods: Immediate implants were placed into artificially induced periapical lesion of mandibular premolars after complete debridement using buccal bone defect made by a 6mm trephine bur in 4 mongrel dogs. Before flap repositioning, a non-resorbable barrier membrane was placed on the buccal defect in the experimental group. No membrane was placed in the control group. In 12 weeks after placement, the dogs were sacrificed and undecalcified histologic specimens were prepared. The vertical distance from the smooth-rough surface interface(SRI) to gingiva, 1st bone contact and bone crest were measured in buccal and lingual side. The horizontal thicknesses of gingiva and bone at 0, 1, 2 and 3mm below SRI were measured. Results: The buccal bone was resorbed more than lingual bone in both groups and there was statistical significance(p<0.05). The distances from SRI to 1st bone contact were $2.45{\pm}2.35\;mm$ in experimental group and $4.49{\pm}3.10\;mm$ in control group. In all vertical level, lingual bone was thicker than buccal bone(p<0.05). Conclusion: Buccal bone was reduced more than lingual bone in immediate implant placement into periapically infected extraction sockets. Placement of non-resorbable barrier membrane reduced the buccal bone resorption. However there was no statistical significance.

• Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons
• /
• v.49 no.1
• /
• pp.30-42
• /
• 2023

Objectives: While the reliability of immediate implant placement in the maxillary molar has been discussed, its significance is questionable. There have been no guidelines for case selection and surgical technique for successful treatment outcomes of immediate maxillary molar implants. Therefore, in this study, we classified alveolar bone height and socket morphology of the maxillary molar to establish guidelines for immediate implant placement. Materials and Methods: From 2011 to 2019, we retrospectively analyzed 106 patients with 148 immediate implants at the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Seoul National University Dental Hospital. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied, and patient characteristics and treatment results were evaluated clinically and radiologically. Results: A total of 29 tapered, sand-blasted, large-grit, and acid-etched (SLA) surfaces of implants were placed in 26 patients. The mean patient age was 64.88 years. Two implants failed and were reinstalled, resulting in a 93.10% survival rate. Fluctuating marginal bone level changes indicating bone regeneration and bone loss were observed in the first year following installation and remained stable after one year of prosthesis loading, with an average bone loss of 0.01±0.01 mm on the distal side and 0.03±0.03 mm on the mesial side. Conclusion: This clinical study demonstrated the significance of immediate implant placement in maxillary molars as a reliable treatment with a high survival rate using tapered SLA implants. With an accurate approach to immediate implantation, surgical intervention and treatment time can be reduced, resulting in patient satisfaction and comfort.

• Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons
• /
• v.47 no.1
• /
• pp.57-61
• /
• 2021

Immediate implant placement (IIP) in fresh extraction sockets exhibits similar survival and success rates to delayed implant placement in healed sockets. Several advantages of IIP involve shortened total treatment time, reduction of the number of invasive surgeries, and subsequent reduction of patient discomfort due to lack of additional surgeries. The major shortcomings in IIP, however, include the inability to obtain early bony support, presence of a gap between the extraction socket and fixture, and the inability to cover the fixture with soft tissue, leading to increased risk of infection and implant loss. When IIP is performed, atraumatic or minimally traumatic extractions, conservation of the septal bone in molars, minimal flap elevation or flapless surgery, bone grafting the gap between the fixture and the extraction socket, and coverage with soft tissue or a membrane must be considered.

• The Journal of the Korean dental association
• /
• v.58 no.2
• /
• pp.83-92
• /
• 2020

In the anterior maxillary area, dental implants for tooth replacement are challenging due to the need to satisfy high esthetic level as well as functionality. Immediate implant placement and provisionalization can dramatically reduce the edentulous period, and then fulfill patient's demand for esthetics. The aim of present case report is to demonstrate two cases that successfully restored single tooth with immediate implant placement and provisionalization in the anterior maxillary area. A 47 years old female was scheduled to replace her maxillary right central incisor due to crown-root fracture by trauma. Another 54-year-old female was planned to place dental implant following tooth extraction of maxillary right lateral incisor owing to continuous pus discharge despite repetitive treatments including apicoectomy. In these two cases, surgical and prosthetic procedures progressed in a similar way. After minimal flap elevation, atraumatic tooth extraction was performed. Implant was placed in proper 3-dimensional position and angulation with primary stability. Bone graft or guided bone regeneration for peri-implant bone defect was conducted simultaneously. Provisionalization without occlusal loading was carried out at the same day. Each definitive crown was delivered at 7 and 5 months after the surgery. Two cases have been followed uneventfully for 2 to 5 years of loading time. In conclusion, Immediate implant placement and provisionalization could lead to esthetic outcome for single tooth replacement with dental implant under proper case selection.