UNASSIGNED: This cross-sectional study aimed to evaluate the factors that determine the choice of oral surgeons and periodontists to perform immediate dental implant placement.
UNASSIGNED: An anonymous survey was carried out from January 6, 2024 to February 29, 2024. The questionnaire was distributed online to Lithuanian specialists - oral surgeons and periodontists, who perform implantation procedures. A total of 186 professionals were included in this survey. Chi-square test, its degrees of freedom was used for the analysis of variables.
UNASSIGNED: The main reason for refusing immediate implant placement is a periapical lesion greater than 5 mm, reported by 91.7% of oral surgeons and 96.9% of periodontists. Good aesthetics and preservation of anatomical structures are identified as an advantage by 99.2% of oral surgeons and 92.3% of periodontists. In the aesthetic zone, for periodontists, the main criterion for choosing a method is the quantitative and qualitative indicators of the soft tissue of the extraction socket 96.9%, and for oral surgeons - the morphology of the bone walls of the socket 87.6%. Only 43.1% of periodontists and 33.9% of oral surgeons are familiar with and use extraction socket morphology assessment classifications for immediate dental implant placement.
UNASSIGNED: Taking into account study\'s results, it is recommended to adjust the teaching programs at Universities and to increase the knowledge of specialists performing dental implantation procedures, by carrying out continuous educational programs.

OBJECTIVE: To retrospectively evaluate peri-implant bone loss and health status associated with the long-term use of laser surface-treated implants.
METHODS: For control study, total of 23 titanium ASTM F136 grade 23 implants were placed in the edentulous molar area of the mandible. When the Implant Stability Quotient (ISQ) ≥ 70 and insertion torque value (ITV) ≥ 35-50 Ncm at the insertion site, an immediate provisional restoration was connected to the implant within a week after surgery. The definitive restorations were placed 2 months after surgery for all implants. 13 implants were immediately loaded, while 10 implants were conventionally loaded. For comparative study, Radiographs were taken from third years for and then annually for the subsequent eight years to monitor marginal bone loss.
RESULTS: After eight year of implant installation, the average change in vertical bone loss was 0.009 mm (P < 0.001), while the average change in horizontal bone loss 8 year after implant placement was 0.026 mm (P < 0.001). The mean marginal bone loss was < 0.2 mm on average.
CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective study, laser-treated implants exhibit a low rate of bone absorption around the implants.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the 5-year safety and efficacy of a narrow-diameter (3.0 mm) implant that was immediately provisionalized with a single crown in the maxillary lateral incisor or mandibular central or lateral incisor area.
METHODS: An open, prospective, single-cohort, multicenter study was conducted, in which narrow-diameter implants were placed in fresh, healed extraction, or congenitally missing sites. All patients were required to meet strict criteria for immediate loading. The primary endpoints were marginal bone levels (MBL) and MBL changes (MBLC) from implant placement to 5-year follow-up. Secondary endpoints included cumulative 5-year survival and success rates, soft tissue health, and esthetic parameters.
RESULTS: A total of 91 implants were placed in 77 patients. The mean MBL remained stable from the 1-year (- 0.79 ± 0.73 mm, n = 75) to 5-year (- 0.74 ± 0.87 mm, n = 65) follow-up. A marginal bone gain of 0.11 ± 0.83 mm was observed from the 1-year to 5-year follow-up. The cumulative 5-year survival rate was 96.5%, and the cumulative 5-year success rate was 93%. The clinical parameters, including the modified plaque index, modified sulcus bleeding index, Jemt\'s papilla index, and pink esthetic score improved throughout the 5-year study.
CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrated that narrow-diameter implants represent a safe and predictable treatment option for subjects suitable for immediate loading and with limited bone volume or limited inter-dental space.
CONCLUSIONS: Narrow-diameter implants with immediate provisionalization can be considered for use to restore missing or damaged teeth with predictable functional and esthetic outcomes. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02184845).

Introduction: This study assessed the effect of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) on the osseointegration of immediately loaded implants with a connective tissue graft (CTG). Methods: This clinical trial was conducted on patients with buccal bone dehiscence requiring dental implants. A CTG was harvested from the palate and placed in the labial side by considering the 2 mm distance between the implant thread and bone. Autogenous bone was harvested from the tuberosity, mixed with the allograft, and implanted at the site. After sufficient torquing of the implant, a customized abutment was fabricated and placed. The patients were randomly assigned to two groups (n=5) of intervention and control. The patients in the intervention group received LLLT with a 940 nm gallium-aluminum-arsenide laser while those in the control group received placebo irradiation. The primary implant stability was measured before the delivery of customized abutment while the secondary implant stability was measured after 12 weeks by Osstell® and reported as the implant stability quotient (ISQ). Results: No significant difference was found in secondary ISQ between the laser and control groups (P>0.05). In the intervention group, a significant difference was found between the primary and secondary ISQ in the buccolingual dimension (P<0.05) but not in the mesiodistal dimension (P>0.05). The two groups had no significant difference in gingival thickness or vertical bone gain (P>0.05). All implants were successful with no complications. Conclusion: LLLT had a significant positive efficacy for the enhancement of secondary stability of implants in the buccolingual dimension. CTG showed optimal efficacy for the treatment of buccal bone dehiscence.

Immediate implant placement in the anterior maxilla remains complex, particularly when the labial cortical plate of the socket is deficient and there is an associated class IV ridge defect with both hard- and soft-tissue deficiencies. This case report describes a novel combination of polydioxanone (PDS) suture tenting to support a synthetic bone graft with simultaneous implant placement with implants featuring a body-shift design and subcrestal internal angle correction. In addition, the implants were immediately loaded with a four-unit provisional bridge at the time of surgery, thus reducing morbidity, costs, and total treatment time.

The socket-shield technique is a clinical procedure aimed at preventing both hard- and soft-tissue collapse following immediate implant placement. The technique can be challenging as multiple factors influence the precision of this treatment. Selective preservation of tooth (SPOT) is a standardized, reproducible tooth-guided preparation protocol for achieving a socket shield and for immediate post-extraction implant site preparation and placement. SPOT emphasizes the utilization of osseodensification burs in both forward (ie, clockwise) rotation, to allow for simultaneous precise root apex removal and shield preparation, and reverse (ie, counterclockwise) rotation, to allow for implant site preparation with further compaction-autografting of bone and dentin, thereby improving implant primary stability and its subsequent early healing. This article presents SPOT in a step-by-step protocol for socket-shield and implant site preparation with immediate post-extraction implant placement. The article describes the stepwise application for single-rooted teeth.

The placement of immediate dental implants in the esthetic zone is a highly successful procedure, however it requires careful case selection. Depending on the structural integrity of the alveolar socket and the gingival level, either an implant can be placed immediately and provisionalized or its insertion may need to be delayed. If the extraction site is compromised, implant placement should be deferred to allow bone or soft-tissue grafting or a combination of both to facilitate esthetic implant placement. In addition, two other treatment factors need to be considered with regard to immediate placement: (1) if the implant has low primary stability (ie, low insertion torque value), a custom healing abutment should be fabricated to maintain tissue contour and retain bone placed into the buccal gap; (2) if there is high primary stability (ie, high insertion torque value), fabrication of an immediate fixed provisional will preserve tissue contour, hold a buccal gap bone graft in place, and provide an esthetic result. At sites where the implant will be placed, factors favoring immediate placement include the following: coronal position of the gingiva compared to adjacent teeth, a type I socket classification, and class I or II sagittal root position. The purpose of this article is to present clinical guidelines that can aid in the decision-making process for delayed versus immediate implant placement.

Rehabilitating thin jaws without reconstructive surgery entails using narrow implants. The proposed treatment adopted an innovative implant system, allowing the mini-screws to be parallel and immediately loaded. A mandible, wearing an overdenture, was functionalized contextually to the residual dental extraction and the placement of six 2.4-mm thick one-piece implants. Low-profile intermediate abutments, the LEMs, able to rotate over the spherical heads of the fixtures, were connected after suturing, oriented, and blocked in a mutual parallel position. The copings, engaging with a tapered juncture of the LEMs, resulted in their alignment to be intraorally wedged together. The provisional superstructure enclosed the copings and was immediately connected to the implants, and the definitive prosthesis was delivered after three months. No clinical signs of peri-implantitis or radiographically evident bone loss were recorded after a two-year follow-up without any prosthetic complication. No cases have been published regarding mini-implants bearing fixed prosthesis rehabilitation.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the implant stability and amount of marginal bone loss in immediate implant placement (IIP) in mandibular molars by using pre-extractive interradicular implant bed preparation vs conventional post-extractive interradicular implant bed preparation.
METHODS: This randomized clinical trial was conducted on fourteen patients who had an immediate dental implant at the mandibular molar area by two different techniques. All patients were divided randomly into two equal groups: Group I (control) was treated with conventional post-extractive interradicular implant bed preparation, and group II (test) was treated by pre-extractive interradicular implant bed preparation All surgeries were performed by the same surgeon. All patients were followed up clinically at immediate post-surgery (T0), 7 days (T1), 3 weeks (T2), 90 days (T3), and 3 months after loading (T6) for healing and to evaluate the marginal bone loss radiographically at T0, T3 and T6. Descriptive and bivariate statistics were computed using the SPSS version (SPSS, IBM Inc., Chicago, IL), and p ≤ 0.05 was considered an indicator of statistical significance.
RESULTS: A total of 7 female and 7 male patients with a mean age of 32.07 ± 5.87 years. Radiographically, there is no significant statistical difference in comparing between two groups for the marginal bone loss. However, there was a highly significant statistical difference (p < 0.001) in each group between different interval periods (T0, T3, T6) with mean start 5.27 ± 0.53, and 5.19 ± 0.72 at (T0) reaching 7.60 ± 0.89 and 7.09 ± 0.96 at (T3) and slightly decrease of 7.52 ± 0.79 and 7.02 ± 0.79 in (T6) with radiographic evaluation, and it represented clinically in each group with mean 3.57 ± 0.313 and 4.0 ± 0.58 at (T0) increase to 6.55 ± 0.395 and 6.52 ± 0.45 at (T6) for both group respectively. There is no statistically significant difference in soft tissue healing with an average mean of 4.57 ± 0.24 and 3.57 ± 0.509 (p = 0.001) when comparing between both groups respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Both techniques seem useful for dental implant placement in badly decayed mandibular molars. However, pre-extracted interradicular implant bed preparation for IIP might offer advantages in terms of primary implant stability and bone preservation. However, further studies are needed to confirm these findings.
CONCLUSIONS: Both techniques are alternative methods for the treatment of badly decayed mandibular molars by immediate dental implant except for minor complications that do not interfere with dental implant placement. How to cite this article: Alzaibak LMA, Abdel-Monem TM, Elgohary NM, et al. Immediate Implant Placement with Different Interradicular Osteotomies in the Mandible: A Randomized Clinical Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2024;25(4):303-312.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the accuracy of immediate anterior implantation using static computer-assisted implant surgery (s-CAIS) and robotic computer-assisted implant surgery (r-CAIS).
METHODS: One hundred and six implants were immediately inserted in the anterior zone of 69 patients using a freehand technique, s-CAIS or r-CAIS. Postoperative cone-beam computed tomography scans were matched with preoperative plans to evaluate the deviations between the planned and placed implant positions.
RESULTS: The global coronal deviations in the freehand, s-CAIS, and r-CAIS groups were 1.29 ± 0.52 mm, 1.01 ± 0.41 mm, and 0.62 ± 0.28 mm, respectively. Significant differences were observed in the r-CAIS group compared to both the s-CAIS group and the freehand group (p < 0.05). However, no significant differences were found between the s-CAIS group and the freehand group (p > 0.05). The global apical deviations in the freehand, s-CAIS and r-CAIS groups were 1.78 ± 0.59 mm, 1.24 ± 0.52 mm and 0.65 ± 0.27 mm, respectively, while the angular deviations in the freehand, s-CAIS and r-CAIS groups were 6.46 ± 2.21°, 2.94 ± 1.71° and 1.46 ± 0.57°, respectively. Significant differences were observed in both the global apical deviations and angular deviations among the three groups (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of immediate anterior implantation with r-CAIS was better than that with s-CAIS. This difference is attributed to better control of the coronal, vertical and axial errors during r-CAIS.
CONCLUSIONS: This study provides significant evidence to support the use of r-CAIS as a potential alternative in immediate anterior implantation.