Background and Aim: The aim of this review study was to evaluate the results and effects of employing or not using bone graft materials in the buccal gap around the Immediate implant, on the alveolar bone dimensions and the success of the implant and its complications after Immediate implant placement. Material and Methods: This study was conducted using electronic versions of articles in Pupmed and Google Scholar from 2010 to 20/4/2022. The extracted electronic articles include 14 randomized clinical trial studies, a high number case report and two systematic reviews based on clinical trial. All the researches are human clinical studies. Articles written in English and Persian, as well as laboratory and animal studies and the use of collagen membranes during Immediate implant placement, have been excluded from the study. The age of patients is over 18 years and the duration of evaluation is four months and more. Finally, 17 articles were reviewed. Conclusion: The effect of using or not using Bone Graft in buccal gap on implant failure cannot be confirmed. It does not seem to have a significant effect on reducing the horizontal and vertical dimension of the buccal plate and has a moderate effect on the beauty of the soft tissue around the implant and the amount of mid-buccal gingival mucosa dimension and reducing the horizontal and vertical dimension of the buccal plate. With the use of bone powder, minor surgical complications such as pain are slightly increased.

Background: The technique most frequently employed for breast reconstruction, either Immediate (IBR) or delayed (DBR), is the insertion of a prosthesis. The placement of a foreign body always carries the risk, albeit small, of peri-prosthetic infection and exposure of the implant that necessitates its removal, signaling the temporary or permanent failure of the reconstruction.Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data of 738 consecutive patients Immediate implant-only breast reconstructions between 1989 and 2005 in order to evaluate the contributing factors of failure.Results: Our statistical analysis identified 3 statistically significant risk factors of implant extrusion: irradiation (P=0.01), post-operative chemotherapy (P= 0.03), and the use of non- Becker expanders (P=0.02).Conclusions: It is important, especially for the multidisciplinary breast cancer team members, to be aware of these factors in order to make the optimal decision for Immediate reconstruction after mastectomy and the suggested techniques. The patients should also be aware, as part of a shared medical decision, of the risks and their frequency before accepting IBR.

Introduction: Immediate placement of implants in a fresh post-extraction socket is an increasingly popular and established treatment option. However, active infection in the extraction site may adversely affect the outcome of this procedure. This study was designed to assess the clinical results of Immediate placement of dental implants in infected extraction sockets using a standardized protocol, which included (a) the use of an Er, Cr: YSGG laser for the decontamination of the infected socket prior to implant insertion, and (b) the utilization of an in situ hardening alloplastic bone graft substitute to augment the gap between the implant surface and the labial plate of bone. Patients and Methods: A retrospective record review was used to identify 68 patients who had implants placed as per the described protocol. A total of 126 implants were placed in 68 patients (65 implants in the maxilla, 61 implants in the mandible). The implants were loaded 136 ± 73 days (mean ± standard deviation; range: 37– 400 days) after implant placement. Eight patients (16 implants) were subsequently lost to follow up. Results: 105 of the 110 implants (95. 45%) placed Immediately in the infected sites using the described protocol survived after prosthetic loading. Conclusion: Immediate implant placement in previously infected sites using the protocols mentioned in our study with laser decontamination of the socket, grafting with an in situ hardening alloplastic bone graft material and non-submerged healing shows a similar survival rate to the published success rates for Immediate implants placed in non-infected sites.

Background. Immediate dental implant placement is a reliable and time-consuming procedure for replacing hopeless teeth. However, an appropriate case selection and a meticulous surgical procedure are prerequisites for achieving long-term successful results in the molar area. Selecting the implant position and achieving adequate primary stability are challenging aspects of Immediate implant placement in molar area. Methods. A total of 30 maxillary and mandibular molars with extensive carries or fracture were selected for this study. A muco-periosteal full-thickness flap reflected. Non-Traumatic extractions for preserving the socket wall applied using rotating devices for root separation and removal, and then the implants (Roxolid, Straumann) were placed based on the prosthetic driven position. The flap sutured without using any graft material. If during the extraction labial or lingual plates of bone were broken or resorbed, the sites would be excluded from the study. Clinical parameters and standard radiographs at baseline and at the time of functional loading were used to assess the outcomes of Immediate implant placement in molar fresh sockets without using graft materials. Data were analyzed using Mann-Whitney statistical tests. Results. All implants presented normal clinical parameters including gingival index, bleeding on probing and pocket depth. Based on the radiographs the level of bone was stable measuring from the first thread to the alveolar crest and bone loss was not found between base-line and the second evaluation (P > 0. 05). Conclusions. Based on the findings of this research Immediate dental implant placement in the molar area is a reliable procedure with high success rate after implantation.

Background. Immediate molar implants (IMIs) have been shown to provide an effective treatment, but their placement comes with potential anatomically related risks. Methods. CBCTs of>400 dental sites were analyzed for key anatomical features at mandibular molar sites that can impact the placement of IMIs. Features measured included distances from each molar furcation to points risking lingual plate perforation or inferior alveolar nerve (IAC) damage, distances from molar root apices to IAC, mesiodistal and buccolingual widths of molar inter-septal bone (ISB), and thicknesses of buccal and lingual cortical plates at first and second mandibular molar sites. Results. Distances from molar furcations to contact with lingual cortical plates and to IAC decreased significantly from mesial to distal, as did distances from root apices to the mandibular canal. Both buccolingual and mesiodistal ISB widths and thicknesses of buccal and lingual cortical plates increased mesiodistally. Buccolingual ISB widths were largest coronally for both molar sites and decreased apically. The reverse was found with mesiodistal septal ISB widths, which increased coronoapically. Conclusion. Risks of lingual perforations or IAC damage were significantly greater at second molars vs. first molars. The ability to place IMIs in ISB at first molars was estimated to be>twice as often as at second molars. Maximal implant lengths for IMIs placed in the furcal bone should not exceed 10 mm.