Skip to main content
Sagittal view x-ray Pereira
Nobel implant placement Pereira
Final restoration Pereira
icon-patient_case
Patient cases:
Single-unit restorations
(Maxilla)

Maxillary central incisor: Immediate implant placement and periodontal plastic surgery

Lead:  
Armando Lopes Pereira

Questions

Log in or register to post questions and answers.
Ask a question
Hide answers
22.09.2019 | 11:56

Justification of the the Extraction

Comments:

1. The Implant Platform diameter discrepancy corresponding to the 11 root diameter at ECJ!

2. Lack of LCPPA radiograph before and after and follow-up!

3, Simultaneous correction of the recession of the adjacent tooth 21!

4. Extreme vicinity Prov. rest. margin to the Implant-abutment interface or Bone margin violating the Biological width!

5. Lack of GBR technique in the presence of Straumann bone Ceramic (membrane?)!

6. ..............

 

 

Show Answers

Comments:

1. The Implant Platform diameter discrepancy corresponding to the 11 root diameter at ECJ!

2. Lack of LCPPA radiograph before and after and follow-up!

3, Simultaneous correction of the recession of the adjacent tooth 21!

4. Extreme vicinity Prov. rest. margin to the Implant-abutment interface or Bone margin violating the Biological width!

5. Lack of GBR technique in the presence of Straumann bone Ceramic (membrane?)!

6. ..............

 

 

Profile picture for user armandopn

Hello Nic, regarding to your topics. 

Extraction: large resorption with some crestal bone loss and no predictability to any treatment to stop that. The endodontist that indicated the extraction.

1. As we place immediate implants in the aesthetic zone especially, we should leave at least a minimum of 2 mm of buccal gap, that was the motive to install the NP Nobel Active. 

2. please explain me LCPPA. WE have a short follow up until now, but I will send here the latest as soon as I have it.

4.The biological width was intact, as the implant was 4mm above buccal mucosa margin. and you can see in X-ray that there was only bone remodelling at the follow up and no bone loss.

5. In our practice, when the buccal plate of the extraction socket is from 3 to 5 mm from de gingival margin after tooth extraction, we just fill the Gap after implant insertion. No need of membrane in this case.

I hope was able to help

Hide answers
22.09.2019 | 16:20

If there was no primary stability, how to manage please?

Show Answers
Hide answers
22.09.2019 | 19:47

extraction can be avoided

extraction cannot be justified.

i feel tooth can be saved.

lot of options available for saving teeth

Show Answers

extraction cannot be justified.

i feel tooth can be saved.

lot of options available for saving teeth

22.09.2019 | 22:05

In reply to by PRADEEP Yadalam

Given the relatively large size of root resorption, how would you predictably save the tooth without the of risk of delayed intervention and then jeopardising the relatively intact buccal plate of bone with possible further bone resorption?

Hide answers
24.01.2020 | 11:07

The shape of the crown during cementation and at the 1-year recall appear to be different.

Fantastic results. Absolutely loved it. One question I had was - the shape of the crown after cementation and the shape at the 1-year recall appear to be different; the crown is more squarish in the cementation photo. Were any changes made? Also, in retrospect, is there anything you would do differently if you had to do the same case all over again? Thanks in advance. 

Show Answers

Fantastic results. Absolutely loved it. One question I had was - the shape of the crown after cementation and the shape at the 1-year recall appear to be different; the crown is more squarish in the cementation photo. Were any changes made? Also, in retrospect, is there anything you would do differently if you had to do the same case all over again? Thanks in advance. 

Team members

Favio Alves
Prosthodontist
Diego Miranda
Dental technician