Introduction

Demand has increased for predictable long-term esthetic results with immediate placement and loading of dental implants. Clinicians are able to meet these demands because of improvements in techniques and biomaterials. Therefore, the indication for immediate implant placement and loading, even in the esthetic regions, has expanded.1,2  When a tooth is extracted, loss of bone height (3.8 mm) and width (1.4 mm) occur in the first 6 months and continues thereafter at a rate of 0.25%–0.5% per year.3  To maintain the gingival architecture and achieve the optimal esthetic result, atraumatic extraction and immediate implant placement are essential. Due to alveolar bone loss4  and gingival recession5  found with compromised periodontal teeth, the pretreatment anatomy is rarely ideal, and therefore compromises the interdental papilla and buccal gingival tissue of the final prosthesis. These factors—with the additional complications of mobility, clinical attachment loss, and systemic diseases (ie, diabetes mellitus6)—make the achievement of optimal esthetics, function, and hygiene maintenance particularly difficult.

Dental implants placed immediately after tooth extraction and immediate loading have several advantages compared to delayed implant placement and conventional loading. These advantages include: (1) a reduction of bone resorption, (2) an immediate esthetically acceptable restoration, (3) shorter treatment time, (4) increased patient acceptance, (5) quicker return of function, (6) potentially superior soft tissue profile, (7) avoidance of a removable prosthesis, and (8) reduced surgical trauma.710  Likewise, there are also disadvantages with immediate implants mainly related to the long-term clinical results. Disadvantages include: (1) stability of the buccal osseous and soft tissues, (2) unpredictable site morphology, (3) a limited amount of soft tissue, and (4) a residual bone defect between the implant and the bone wall.1114 

To solve these disadvantages and make this protocol more predictable, we propose a single-appointment–combined approach for the treatment of a periodontally compromised tooth that involves: (1) atraumatic tooth extraction, (2) immediate implant placement, (3) autogenous block and particulate bone graft, (4) connective tissue graft, and (5) immediate restoration without incision. To the best of our knowledge, there are few reports that describe this combined surgical technique for the treatment of a hopeless tooth in the esthetic region.

Case Report

A 27-year-old Caucasian woman was referred to the Department of Periodontology for the treatment of her maxillary right first premolar. The patient's chief complaint was tooth mobility and esthetic appearance (Figure 1a). She had no relevant medical history and denied smoking or the use of alcohol. Her dental history revealed a maxillary right first premolar that had been treated with root canal therapy and been restored with a metal-ceramic crown. Periapical radiographs demonstrated unsatisfactory endodontic treatment and localized vertical bone resorption on the mesial (Figure 1b). Periodontal examination revealed thick gingival tissue and localized gingival recessions. Probing depths ranged from 3–4 mm, but in her right maxillary premolar a localized 7 mm of probing depth was detected next to the right canine with signs of class II tooth mobility, absence of keratinized gingiva, and 2 mm of gingival recession. Based on clinical and radiographic examinations, an immediate implant placement followed by regenerative procedures and immediate provisionalization of the crown was proposed and accepted by the patient. Written informed consent was obtained prior to treatment.

Figures 1 and 2.

Figure 1. (a) Initial clinical aspect of the maxillary right first premolar. (b) Periapical radiograph showing advanced vertical bone loss, endodontic treatment, and a metal ceramic crown. (c and d) Atraumatic extraction of a hopeless tooth to preserve the osseous contour. Figure 2. (a–d) Immediate implant placement in an ideal tridimensional position to achieve the appropriate emergence profile: in the mesiodistal direction, at least 2 mm of the adjacent teeth and the implant shoulder placed 3 mm apical to the cement-enamel junction of the adjacent right maxillary canine, and the axis of the implant was with the incisal edges of the adjacent teeth or slightly palatal.

Figures 1 and 2.

Figure 1. (a) Initial clinical aspect of the maxillary right first premolar. (b) Periapical radiograph showing advanced vertical bone loss, endodontic treatment, and a metal ceramic crown. (c and d) Atraumatic extraction of a hopeless tooth to preserve the osseous contour. Figure 2. (a–d) Immediate implant placement in an ideal tridimensional position to achieve the appropriate emergence profile: in the mesiodistal direction, at least 2 mm of the adjacent teeth and the implant shoulder placed 3 mm apical to the cement-enamel junction of the adjacent right maxillary canine, and the axis of the implant was with the incisal edges of the adjacent teeth or slightly palatal.

Initially, a basic periodontal treatment was performed involving oral hygiene instructions and reinforcement of her hygiene efforts followed by supra and subgingival scaling and root planning. After two weeks, the maxillary right first premolar was atraumatically extracted under local anesthesia (Mepivacaine 2% and Epinephrine 1:100 000, Mepiadre, DFL, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil) with a flapless technique using a periotome (Nobel Biocare, Yorba Linda, Calif) to preserve the buccal bone architectures and the osseous structures around the fresh socket (Figure 1c and d). After the tooth extraction, the alveolus was curetted and a narrow dental implant (3.5 × 13 mm Cone Morse Drive, Neodent, Curitiba – PR, Brazil) was immediately inserted (Figure 2a through d), respecting the minimum distances necessary to establish optimal esthetic results and achieve the appropriate emergence profile: in the mesiodistal direction, at least 2 mm away from the adjacent teeth, the implant shoulder placed 3 mm apical to the cementoenamel junction of the adjacent right maxillary canine, and the axis of the implant was with the incisal edges of the adjacent teeth or slightly palatal. The initial stability of the implant was 40 Ncm, allowing immediate provisionalization of the crown.

Figures 3 and 4.

Figure 3. (a–d) Autogenous block bone graft harvested from the maxillary tuber adjacent to the first lefty molar. Figure 4. (a and b) Provisional abutment placed after implant installation. (c and d) Autogenous block bone graft placed immediately after implant installation, allowing immediate dentoalveolar restoration.

Figures 3 and 4.

Figure 3. (a–d) Autogenous block bone graft harvested from the maxillary tuber adjacent to the first lefty molar. Figure 4. (a and b) Provisional abutment placed after implant installation. (c and d) Autogenous block bone graft placed immediately after implant installation, allowing immediate dentoalveolar restoration.

Because the buccal bone plate was lost due to the inflammatory process, autogenous bone block graft removed from the maxillary tuberosity was used to increase both the horizontal and vertical dimensions of the alveolar socket. To obtain the bone graft from the maxillary tuberosity, the procedure was performed under local anesthesia (Mepivacaine 2% and Epinephrine 1:100 000, Mepiadre 89, DFL). To harvest the maxillary bone, an access preparation was carried out with a crestal and two vertical releasing incisions in the posterior area adjacent to the maxillary left first molar (Figure 3a). A mucoperiosteal flap was then obtained (Figure 3b), the osteotomy performed with rotating instruments, and a thin block of bone was obtained with mallet and chisel (Quinelato, Rio Claro, SP, Brazil) (Figure 3c and d). After a provisional titanium cylinder was connected to the implant neck (Figure 4a and b), the bone graft was immediately placed into the alveolar socket above the implant (Figure 4c and d). To fill the bone-to-implant gap, the block bone graft removed from the maxillary tuberosity was ground into a particulate consistency using a bone mill (Neodent) and was inserted after releasing a sulcular incision (Figure 5a through d). The mucoperiosteal flap was repositioned, and the defect was sutured with Vicryl 4-0 thread (Ethicon, Johnson & Johnson SA, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil).

Figures 5 and 6.

Figure 5. (a) Intrasulcular incision to allow insertion of the graft. (b–d) Particulate autogenous bone graft to fill the gap between the implant and the bone wall. Figure 6. (a and b) Autogenous connective tissue graft to improve the gingival contour and increase the keratinized gingiva, favoring esthetic results. (c and d) Simple suture and installation of provisional crown, reducing the treatment time and achieving immediately esthetic results.

Figures 5 and 6.

Figure 5. (a) Intrasulcular incision to allow insertion of the graft. (b–d) Particulate autogenous bone graft to fill the gap between the implant and the bone wall. Figure 6. (a and b) Autogenous connective tissue graft to improve the gingival contour and increase the keratinized gingiva, favoring esthetic results. (c and d) Simple suture and installation of provisional crown, reducing the treatment time and achieving immediately esthetic results.

Figures 7 and 8.

Figure 7. (a–d) Prosthetic procedures 4 months after implant placement to the final restoration. Figure 8. (a–d) Placement of a custom abutment and the laboratorial procedures to create an ideal marginal contour of the crown.

Figures 7 and 8.

Figure 7. (a–d) Prosthetic procedures 4 months after implant placement to the final restoration. Figure 8. (a–d) Placement of a custom abutment and the laboratorial procedures to create an ideal marginal contour of the crown.

Figures 9 and 10.

Figure 9. (a–d) Installation of the definitive metal-free crown with feldspathic porcelain crown IPS Empress II. Figure 10. (a) Definitive all-ceramic CAD/CAM Zirconia abutments 2-year post-operative. Note the absence of gingival recession, stabilization of the achieved results, and optimal esthetic outcomes. (b) Periapical radiograph 2-year post-operative showing absence of bone loss and stabilization of the alveolar crest compared to the initial clinical and radiographic situation. (c) Pretreatment clinical view of the maxillary right first premolar. (d) Periapical pretreatment radiography.

Figures 9 and 10.

Figure 9. (a–d) Installation of the definitive metal-free crown with feldspathic porcelain crown IPS Empress II. Figure 10. (a) Definitive all-ceramic CAD/CAM Zirconia abutments 2-year post-operative. Note the absence of gingival recession, stabilization of the achieved results, and optimal esthetic outcomes. (b) Periapical radiograph 2-year post-operative showing absence of bone loss and stabilization of the alveolar crest compared to the initial clinical and radiographic situation. (c) Pretreatment clinical view of the maxillary right first premolar. (d) Periapical pretreatment radiography.

Due to the thin gingival biotype and a previous gingival recession, an autogenous connective tissue graft was removed from the palate, as previously described,15  under local anesthesia (Mepivacaine 2% and Epinephrine 1:100 000, Mepiadre, DFL) and inserted above the block bone graft to improve the width and thickness of keratinized gingiva (Figure 6a and b). A simple suture with Nylon 5-0 thread (Ethicon, Johnson & Johnson) was made to avoid the connective tissue graft movement. Finally, a provisional resin crown was placed over a provisional titanium cylinder (Figure 6c and d). The patient was seen 1 week after surgery for suture removal and for provisional resin crown adjustments. Postoperative visits included oral hygiene instructions and plaque control every month for 4 months after surgery.

After 4 months postoperatively, an improvement of the gingival margin width and thickness was observed (Figure 7a). The provisional restoration was removed (Figure 7b), and the prosthetic procedures were initiated by transfer impression for coping fabrication (Figure 7c and d). The implant-prosthetic connection was platform switch, displacing the implant-abutment interface and the microgap away from the edge of the implant and minimizing the micro-leakage. The choice for the platform switch was based on previous work that had shown less marginal bone loss compared to the platform-matched implants.16  A zirconia custom abutment was made using CAD/CAM technology to create an esthetic contour at the gingival margin (Figure 8a through d). Then, feldspathic porcelain crown IPS Empress II – lithium-disilicate glass-ceramic restoration (Ivoclar, Vivadent) was fabricated and cemented over the abutment to achieve an excellent esthetic results (Figure 9a through d).

The 2-years of follow-up results have demonstrated an improved width and thickness of gingival architecture, therefore allowing an optimal esthetic outcome without gingival recession or probing depths. Additionally, there was no bleeding upon probing. Periapical radiographs showed the correct position of the implant in relation to the adjacent teeth and the increased vertical bone formation completely filling the osseous vertical defect without marginal bone loss. The functional and esthetic expectations of the patient were achieved (Figure 10a and b) relative to the pretreatment situation (Figure 10c and d).

Discussion

Treatment of periodontally compromised tooth with immediate implant placement in the fresh extraction socket in the esthetic region is a complex clinical challenge. This is especially true when a tooth involves advanced alveolar bone loss and gingival recession. Treatment demands a multidisciplinary approach, proper diagnosis, and a precise treatment plan to achieve optimal esthetics results.17 

In the present case, the treatment option began with the atraumatic extraction of a hopeless tooth. This approach is justified because the ridge preservation maintained the existing soft and hard tissue for optimizing esthetic and functional outcomes.3  The implant was then placed immediately to prevent bone resorption that usually occurs after a tooth extraction. The bone resorption could result in portions of the implant becoming exposed, leading to poor esthetic results.10  Adequate implant length selection to engage enough bone for initial stability and primary integration was achieved with a 15 mm-diameter implant. A minimum of 5 mm of vertical bone-to-implant contact was obtained to provide adequate primary stability that allowed for the immediate prosthetic provisionalization of the implant.18 

In this case, we chose to use a narrow-diameter implant (NDI) due to the limited buccolingual width alveolar bone, which could impair the bone healing after the autogenous bone graft placement. In addition, a standard-diameter implant (SDI) could increase the risk of a dehiscence defect. In a recent paper, Arisan et al19  evaluated the survival rates of 316 NDI (diameter < 3.75 mm) inserted into 139 patients and restored them with 120 prostheses followed over a 10-year period. The results showed a successful implant rate and survival rate of 91.4% and 92.3%, respectively, indicating that NDI could be used with safety and predictability when an SDI is not appropriate. These findings are in agreement with another retrospective study20  that evaluated 510 NDI in 237 patients followed for a median of 20 months. The authors revealed an implant survival rate of 99.4% for NDI, similar to SDI.2123  Comparable results were found in a recent paper using 17 NDI immediately provisionalized in 13 patients, showing 100% success rate after 12 months.24  Our results after 2 years of follow-up showed stability of the gingival margin and absence of marginal bone loss and bone dehiscence when a NDI with 15 mm length was immediately placed after tooth extraction, followed by regenerative procedures and immediate provisionalization of the implant. These successful results could be explained due to NDI providing enough space in the fresh extraction socket to place the block bone graft without overtensioning the buccogingival tissue, thus allowing the maintenance of the source of blood supply to the bone and connective tissue graft, which is essential to ensuring long-term implant success. Furthermore, the reduction of drilling steps needed for the installation of NDI compared to SDI was favorable to the healing process.25  According to Covani et al26  the use of NDI in relation to the extraction socket width plays an important role in reducing the rate of vertical bone resorption at the buccal aspect of implants placed in fresh extraction sockets.

Considerable attention has been given to determine the remodeling of the alveolar ridge that occurs after tooth extraction and implant placement. In a clinical study, Covani et al27  evaluated the bone healing following immediate or delayed (6–8 wk) implant placement after tooth extraction. The result of this study showed marked reduction of the alveolar bone width 4–6 months after implant placement, independently of the timing of implant installation. In contrast, Araujo et al14  investigated the alterations that occurred during the healing process following premolar and molar tooth extraction and immediate implant installation in dogs. The results showed that implant placement failed to preserve the alveolar bone ridge dimension after tooth extraction. These results can be attributed due to the marginal gap between the implant and the socket bone walls, which is larger in the molar area, resulting in greater width and depth alveolar bone defect. The same research group evaluated whether established osseointegration following implant placement after tooth extraction could be lost due to tissue remodeling.13  The authors observed that the marginal gap between the implant and the bone wall was filled with a coagulum, which was replaced by newly formed bone after 4 weeks. However, after this interval, bone-to-implant contact, at least in part, was lost during the healing process, which is in agreement with another study.28  Due to these observations, we chose to combine the autogenous block and particulate bone graft, followed by connective tissue graft. This was done to avoid bone resorption that normally occurs during the initial phase of healing that follows immediate implant placement in alveolar fresh sockets.

The usual instability in the long-term esthetic results as an effect of traditional immediate implants is placed at a critical point in this protocol. Several clinical studies have demonstrated that about 20%–30% of immediate implants resulted in gingival recession of 1 mm or more, justified by the lack of buccal plate, gingival recession, or poor implant positioning.2931  For these reasons, an autogenous bone graft obtained from the maxillary tuberosity was placed in the fresh socket without incision on the receptor site to improve the facial osseous contour and provide sufficient height and thickness of support for the soft tissues. Thereafter, a particulate bone graft was added to fill the gap between the bone-to-implant contact because previous studies have shown that bone gap distances greater than 0.5 mm result in unpredictable bone deposition on the implant surface.32  In addition, a connective tissue graft was placed in the fresh socket to obtain a harmonious esthetic restoration. The combination of the bone graft and connective tissue graft played an important role in compensating the alveolar bone changes that normally follow during the healing process.12,2931,33 

To evaluate the stability of the peri-implant tissues around implants placed immediately after tooth extraction with simultaneous increase in tissue volume by means of guided bone regeneration using bioabsorbable collagen membrane, autogenous bone and deproteinized bovine bone, a prospective study by Buser et al34  demonstrated stability of hard and soft tissues of all 41 implants examined, without compromising the peri-implant esthetic in the anterior maxilla. A 5- to 9-year follow-up confirmed that the risk for gingival recession is lower when the implant is placed immediately after tooth extraction. The concept of immediate implant placement after tooth extraction with the simultaneous bone augmentation procedure resulted in a positive esthetic outcomes.

In conclusion, this treatment protocol created a harmonious gingival architecture with sufficient width and thickness, maintained the stability of the alveolar bone crest, and thus resulted in an excellent esthetic 2-years of follow-up. This treatment protocol performed with state-of-the-art techniques can predictably and consistently result in successful outcomes.

Abbreviations

     
  • NDI

    narrow diameter implant

  •  
  • SDI

    standard diameter implant

References

References
1
Belser
UC
,
Grutter
L
,
Vailati
F
,
Bornstein
MM
,
Weber
HP
,
Buser
D
.
Outcome evaluation of early placed maxillary anterior single-tooth implants using objective esthetic criteria: a cross-sectional, retrospective study in 45 patients with a 2- to 4-year follow-up using pink and white esthetic scores
.
J Periodontol
.
2009
;
80
:
140
151
.
2.
de Avila
ED
,
de Molon
RS
,
de Assis Mollo F Jr, et al
.
Multidisciplinary approach for the aesthetic treatment of maxillary lateral incisors agenesis: thinking about implants? Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol
.
2012
;
114
:
e22
e28
.
3.
Lang
NP
,
Pun
L
,
Lau
KY
,
Li
KY
,
Wong
MC
.
A systematic review on survival and success rates of implants placed immediately into fresh extraction sockets after at least 1 year
.
Clin Oral Implants Res
.
2012
;
23
(
suppl 5
):
39
66
.
4.
de Molon
RS
,
de Avila
ED
,
Nogueira
AV
, et al.
Evaluation of the host response in various models of induced periodontal disease in mice (published online ahead of print June 27, 2013). J Periodontol
.
2014
;
85
:
465
477
.
5.
de Molon
RS
,
de Avila
ED
,
de Souza
JA
,
Nogueira
AV
,
Cirelli
CC
,
Cirelli
JA
.
Combination of orthodontic movement and periodontal therapy for full root coverage in a Miller class III recession: a case report with 12 years of follow-up
.
Braz Dent J
.
2012
;
23
:
758
763
.
6.
de Molon
RS
,
Morais-Camilo
JA
,
Verzola
MH
,
Faeda
RS
,
Pepato
MT
,
Marcantonio
E
Jr
.
Impact of diabetes mellitus and metabolic control on bone healing around osseointegrated implants: removal torque and histomorphometric analysis in rats
.
Clin Oral Implants Res
.
2013
;
24
:
831
837
.
7.
Wang
HL
,
Boyapati
L
.
“PASS” principles for predictable bone regeneration
.
Implant Dent
.
2006
;
15
:
8
17
.
8.
Misch
CE
,
Wang
HL
,
Misch
CM
,
Sharawy
M
,
Lemons
J
,
Judy
KW
.
Rationale for the application of immediate load in implant dentistry: Part I
.
Implant Dent
.
2004
;
13
:
207
217
.
9.
Avila
G
,
Galindo
P
,
Rios
H
,
Wang
HL
.
Immediate implant loading: current status from available literature
.
Implant Dent
.
2007
;
16
:
235
245
.
10.
Chung
S
,
McCullagh
A
,
Irinakis
T
.
Immediate loading in the maxillary arch: evidence-based guidelines to improve success rates: a review
.
J Oral Implantol
.
2011
;
37
:
610
621
.
11.
Hammerle
CH
,
Chen
ST
,
Wilson
TG
Jr
.
Consensus statements and recommended clinical procedures regarding the placement of implants in extraction sockets
.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
.
2004
;
19
(
suppl
):
26
28
.
12.
Lee
YM
,
Kim
DY
,
Kim
JY
, et al.
Peri-implant soft tissue level secondary to a connective tissue graft in conjunction with immediate implant placement: a 2-year follow-up report of 11 consecutive cases
.
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent
.
2012
;
32
:
213
222
.
13.
Araujo
MG
,
Sukekava
F
,
Wennstrom
JL
,
Lindhe
J
.
Tissue modeling following implant placement in fresh extraction sockets
.
Clin Oral Implants Res
.
2006
;
17
:
615
624
.
14.
Araujo
MG
,
Wennstrom
JL
,
Lindhe
J
.
Modeling of the buccal and lingual bone walls of fresh extraction sites following implant installation
.
Clin Oral Implants Res
.
2006
;
17
:
606
614
.
15.
Hurzeler
MB
,
Weng
D
.
A single-incision technique to harvest subepithelial connective tissue grafts from the palate
.
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent
.
1999
;
19
:
279
287
.
16.
Atieh
MA
,
Ibrahim
HM
,
Atieh
AH
.
Platform switching for marginal bone preservation around dental implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis
.
J Periodontol
.
2010
;
81
:
1350
1366
.
17.
de Barros
LA
,
de Almeida Cardoso
M
,
de Avila
ED
, et al.
Six-year follow-up of maxillary anterior rehabilitation with forced orthodontic extrusion: achieving esthetic excellence with a multidisciplinary approach
.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
.
2013
;
144
:
607
615
.
18.
Bhola
M
,
Neely
AL
,
Kolhatkar
S
.
Immediate implant placement: clinical decisions, advantages, and disadvantages
.
J Prosthodont
.
2008
;
17
:
576
581
.
19.
Arisan
V
,
Bolukbasi
N
,
Ersanli
S
,
Ozdemir
T
.
Evaluation of 316 narrow diameter implants followed for 5–10 years: a clinical and radiographic retrospective study
.
Clin Oral Implants Res
.
2010
;
21
:
296
307
.
20.
Degidi
M
,
Piattelli
A
,
Carinci
F
.
Clinical outcome of narrow diameter implants: a retrospective study of 510 implants
.
J Periodontol
.
2008
;
79
:
49
54
.
21.
Zinsli
B
,
Sagesser
T
,
Mericske
E
,
Mericske-Stern
R
.
Clinical evaluation of small-diameter ITI implants: a prospective study
.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
.
2004
;
19
:
92
99
.
22.
Vigolo
P
,
Givani
A
,
Majzoub
Z
,
Cordioli
G
.
Clinical evaluation of small-diameter implants in single-tooth and multiple-implant restorations: a 7-year retrospective study
.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
.
2004
;
19
:
703
709
.
23.
Comfort
MB
,
Chu
FC
,
Chai
J
,
Wat
PY
,
Chow
TW. A
5-year prospective study on small diameter screw-shaped oral implants
.
J Oral Rehabil
.
2005
;
32
:
341
345
.
24.
Oyama
K
,
Kan
JY
,
Rungcharassaeng
K
,
Lozada
J
.
Immediate provisionalization of 3.0-mm-diameter implants replacing single missing maxillary and mandibular incisors: 1-year prospective study
.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
.
2012
;
27
:
173
180
.
25.
Benic
GI
,
Gallucci
GO
,
Mokti
M
,
Hammerle
CH
,
Weber
HP
,
Jung
RE
.
Titanium-zirconium narrow-diameter versus titanium regular-diameter implants for anterior and premolar single crowns: 1-year results of a randomized controlled clinical study
.
J Clin Periodontol
.
2013
;
40
:
1052
1061
.
26.
Covani
U
,
Cornelini
R
,
Calvo
JL
,
Tonelli
P
,
Barone
A
.
Bone remodeling around implants placed in fresh extraction sockets
.
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent
.
2010
;
30
:
601
607
.
27.
Covani
U
,
Bortolaia
C
,
Barone
A
,
Sbordone
L
.
Bucco-lingual crestal bone changes after immediate and delayed implant placement
.
J Periodontol
.
2004
;
75
:
1605
1612
.
28.
Botticelli
D
,
Persson
LG
,
Lindhe
J
,
Berglundh
T
.
Bone tissue formation adjacent to implants placed in fresh extraction sockets: an experimental study in dogs
.
Clin Oral Implants Res
.
2006
;
17
:
351
358
.
29.
Kan
JY
,
Rungcharassaeng
K
,
Sclar
A
,
Lozada
JL
.
Effects of the facial osseous defect morphology on gingival dynamics after immediate tooth replacement and guided bone regeneration: 1-year results
.
J Oral Maxillofac Surg
.
2007
;
65
:
13
19
.
30.
Chen
ST
,
Darby
IB
,
Reynolds
EC
.
A prospective clinical study of non-submerged immediate implants: clinical outcomes and esthetic results
.
Clin Oral Implants Res
.
2007
;
18
:
552
562
.
31.
Cordaro
L
,
Torsello
F
,
Roccuzzo
M
.
Clinical outcome of submerged vs non-submerged implants placed in fresh extraction sockets
.
Clin Oral Implants Res
.
2009
;
20
:
1307
1313
.
32.
Knox
R
,
Caudill
R
,
Meffert
R
.
Histologic evaluation of dental endosseous implants placed in surgically created extraction defects
.
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent
.
1991
;
11
:
364
375
.
33.
Rungcharassaeng
K
,
Kan
JY
,
Yoshino
S
,
Morimoto
T
,
Zimmerman
G
.
Immediate implant placement and provisionalization with and without a connective tissue graft: an analysis of facial gingival tissue thickness
.
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent
.
2012
;
32
:
657
663
.
34.
Buser
D
,
Chappuis
V
,
Bornstein
MM
,
Wittneben
JG
,
Frei
M
,
Belser
UC
.
Long-term stability of contour augmentation with early implant placement following single tooth extraction in the esthetic zone a prospective, cross-sectional study in 41 patients with a 5- to 9-year follow-up
.
J Periodontol
.
2013
;
84
:
1517
1527
.