4. 1. Wagenberg BD, Ginsburg TR. Immediate implant placement on removal of the natural tooth:
retrospective analysis of 1,081 implants. Compendium of Continuing Educ Dent 2001;22:399-404.
2. Cooper LF, Rahman A, Moriarty J, et al. Immediate mandibular rehabilitation with endosseous
implants: simultaneous extraction, implant placement, and loading. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
2002;17:517-25.
November2014
4
5. 1. Wagenberg BD, Ginsburg TR. Immediate implant placement on removal of the natural tooth:
retrospective analysis of 1,081 implants. Compendium of Continuing Educ Dent 2001;22:399-
404.
2. Avinash S. Bidra. Evidence-Based Prosthodontics ;Fundamental Considerations, Limitations, and
Guidelines. Dental Clinics of North America 2014 ; Jan, 1-17.
November2014
5
13. Thick Vs. Thin
Thick Vs. Medium Vs.
Thin
November2014
13
Fu JH, Lee A, Influence of tissue biotype on implant esthetics. Int J Oral
Maxillofac Imp 2011;26:499-508
14. November2014
14
o Visual inspection
o Trans gingival
probing
o Probe transparency
o Ultrasonic device
o CBCT imaging
Fu JH, Lee A, Influence of tissue biotype on implant esthetics. Int J Oral
Maxillofac Imp 20011;26:499-508
25. EXTRACTION DEFECT
SOUNDING, CLASSIFICATION
Caplanis N, Lozarra JL, Kan JY. Extraction Defect: Assessment, Classification and
Management. International Journal of Clinical Implant Dentistry, 2009;1(1):1-11
EDS, Classification
November2014
25
26. EXTRACTION DEFECT —
TYPE 1
Pristine, undamaged single-
rooted socket
Thick biotype
systemically healthy
November2014
26
Caplanis N, Lozarra JL, Kan JY. Extraction Defect: Assessment, Classification and
Management. International Journal of Clinical Implant Dentistry, 2009;1(1):1-11
27. EXTRACTION DEFECT —
TYPE 2
Any socket with up to mild
crestal bone loss or
interproximal tissue loss of
2 mm
thin or thick biotype
buccal plate thickness <1
mm, or any combination
systemically healthy
1 socket wall is
compromised
November2014
27
Caplanis N, Lozarra JL, Kan JY. Extraction Defect: Assessment, Classification and
Management. International Journal of Clinical Implant Dentistry, 2009;1(1):1-11
28. EXTRACTION DEFECT —
TYPE 3
Moderate compromise of the
local tissues
Systemically healthy
Vertical or transverse hard-
and/or soft tissue loss of 3 to
5 mm
1 or 2 compromised socket
walls
Thick or thin biotype
November2014
28
Caplanis N, Lozarra JL, Kan JY. Extraction Defect: Assessment, Classification and
Management. International Journal of Clinical Implant Dentistry, 2009;1(1):1-11
29. EXTRACTION DEFECT —
TYPE 4
Severely compromised
socket
Greater than 5 mm
vertical or transverse loss
of hard and/or soft tissue
2 or more reduced socket
walls
Systemically healthy
Biotype either thick or
thin
November2014
29
Caplanis N, Lozarra JL, Kan JY. Extraction Defect: Assessment, Classification and
Management. International Journal of Clinical Implant Dentistry, 2009;1(1):1-11
37. Prevent bone resorption?
Effect on facial plate?
Effect on Dehiscence?
Antibiotics?
November2014
37
Chen, Buser. Clinical and esthetic outcomes of implant placement in post-extraction soc
38. November2014
38
Chen, Buser. Clinical and esthetic outcomes of implant placement in post-extraction soc
Chen, Buser. Esthetic outcomes of immediate implants in anterior maxilla, 2014
48. Esthetic Risk
Factors
Low Medium High
Medical status
Healthy,
Intact
Immune
System
-
Compromised
Immune
System
Smoking Non-smoker Light smoker
(<10 cig/d)
Heavy smoker
(>10 cig/d)
Esthetic
expectations
Low Medium High
Lip line Low Medium High
Gingival biotype
Low-
scalloped,
thick
Medium-
scalloped,
Medium-
thick
High-
scalloped,
thin
LOW
MEDIU
M
HIGH
November2014
48
49. Infection at implant
site None Chronic Acute
Adjacent teeth bone
level
≤5 mm to
contact point
5.5-6.5 mm to
contact point
≥7 mm to
contact
point
Adjacent teeth
restorative status
Virgin - Restored
Width of edentulous
span
1 tooth (≥7
mm)
1 tooth (≥5.5
mm)
1 tooth (<7
mm)
1 tooth (<5.5
mm)
2 teeth or
more
Soft tissue anatomy Intact soft
tissue
- Soft-tissue
defects
Bone anatomy of without bone Horizontal bone Vertical
MEDIU
M
HIGH
November2014
49
51. Proper diagnosis and implant position despite
challenges
Need for further evidence
The key to implant success is primary stability
November2014
51
The EDS, Extraction Defect Sounding, classification describes the condition of the hard as well as soft tissues immediately following tooth removal, prior to healing and remodeling of the extraction socket and provides basic treatment guidelines to achieve predictable implant integration and esthetics.
The recommended treatment protocol for the EDS-2 is a two-step implant placement approach with site preservation techniques performed at the time of tooth extraction .
An immediate implant with associated defect repair procedures when indicated can also be considered, however; a greater risk of recession and implant exposure may occur (Botticelli D, et al 2004)
The recommended treatment protocol for the EDS-3 is a two-step implant placement approach with site preservation techniques performed at the time of tooth extraction followed by implant placement three to six months later.
A secondary procedure to perform site development may be necessary in some situations.
Ideal soft-tissue esthetics is achievable but not predictable in the EDS-3.
The recommended treatment protocol for the EDS-4 is usually a three-step implant placement approach
Placement of a graft material serves to preserve the existing alveolus. A resorbable membrane is used to contain the graft and provide space for a modest regenerative response.
connective tissue graft will help enhance the soft-tissue profile and prepare for future primary closure during the subsequent
Implant placement: A three- to six-month healing period is required prior to the subsequent surgical procedure necessary for implant placement