Introduction
Immediate placement in fresh extraction sockets has recently gained significant consideration for this indication 1. Besides reducing treatment time and surgical sessions and providing the possibility for immediate fixed temporization, immediate placement may also promote esthetic outcomes by supporting the preservation of the contours of soft tissues and interdental papillae2–4. These aspects render this treatment modality especially attractive for treatments in the esthetic area4.
The immediate placement of implants in fresh extraction sockets represents a predictable and successful treatment modality, provided cases are carefully selected, and surgical protocols are respected1,5–7. Specific case selection criteria have been proposed to ensure functional and esthetic success1,7. These criteria include the sagittal root position, the gingival margin level, the gingival biotype, the extraction socket anatomy, the presence and quality of buccal bone, the shape of the edentulous ridge, and the presence of adequate bone volume and quality to achieve primary stability of the implant 8–10.
An often applied classification to estimate the probable success of an immediate placement is based on the presence and condition of the buccal bone and facial soft tissues11. According to this classification, type I sockets are ideal for immediate placement. These sockets display nominal and post-extraction unchanged facial soft tissue and buccal crestal bone levels relative to the cementoenamel junction of the hopeless tooth. Any deviation from this ideal situation, e.g. as with type II sockets that lack the buccal wall, has been associated with a higher onset of, for example, post-treatment soft tissue recessions and less-than-ideal esthetic results11. In these cases, detailed planning of the restorative design and surgical approach based on the patient's conditions is critical11. Advanced, state-of-the-art virtual planning tools may help to facilitate this process and render such treatments more efficient and predictable.
The following case report describes immediate implant placement and restoration in a patient with high esthetic expectations who experienced a root fracture of the central incisor. The partial absence of the buccal wall complicated the treatment of the case. To facilitate a more predictable outcome, we have tested/used the novel "Virtual Tooth Extraction" feature of coDiagnostiX®. Besides implant positional planning, this novel software module can be used for delivering a prefabricated final zirconia abutment in a one-time-one-abutment approach. Precise adaptation of the abutment to the socket's bone and soft tissue architecture before surgery and precise implant placement helped deliver a superior and long-term stable esthetic outcome.
Initial situation
A 58-year-old woman presented in our clinic with a chief complaint of pain and mobility at her upper left incisor. Clinical examination confirmed extended mobility of tooth #21 associated with a coronal displacement of the tooth crown (Figure 1). Diagnostic cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) evidenced the presence of a horizontal crown root fracture of the previously endodontically treated tooth. No signs of inflammation or infection were detected. Since the prognosis of the affected tooth was unfavorable, extraction was recommended. Her general anamnesis confirmed that the patient, a non-smoker with good oral hygiene, was in good health.
No systemic or local risk factors or contraindications for implant treatment were identified. No vestibular lamina (buccal bone plate) could be identified from the CBCT (Figure 2). Extraction was assumed to likely result in a type II extraction socket with intact soft tissues, but with the buccal plate most likely to be missing after extraction 11. Abundant amounts of bone for implant placement apical and palatal to the tooth root (class I sagittal root position, according to Kan) were present 12. The anatomic conditions were evaluated as adequate to attain primary stability as part of immediate implant placement, with an elevated risk for soft tissue dehiscences due to the lack of buccal tissues.
Following the anamnesis, the patient was informed about the different treatment options, including immediate or delayed protocols and associated potential risks and advantages. The patient strongly preferred an immediate restoration due to her concern about a temporary esthetic compromise.