The effect of implant macrogeometry in immediate tooth replacement therapy: A case series

• Published in: Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry 2022-01, Vol.34 (1), p.154-166
• Main Authors: Saito, Hanae, Chu, Stephen J., Tarnow, Dennis P.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: anterior esthetic; Bone grafts; Dehiscence; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental implants; Dental Implants, Single-Tooth; Esthetics, Dental; Immediate Dental Implant Loading; immediate tooth replacement therapy; implant dentistry; implant design; Maxilla - surgery; Phenotypes; Prostheses; Teeth; Tooth Extraction; Tooth Socket - surgery
• ISSN: 1496-4155; 1708-8240
• DOI: 10.1111/jerd.12849

The concept of immediate tooth replacement therapy (ITRT) in the esthetic zone has become a viable treatment modality and widely accepted in clinical practice. However, achieving adequate primary stability that enables immediate provisional restoration and desirable space for bone‐grafting with conventional tapered body implant designs is challenging. The macro‐hybrid implant design with a prosthetic angle correction and body‐shift feature in a singular form provides not only greater primary stability of a wider diameter implant but also circumferential gap distance both facially and interproximally preserve the labial bone plate and interdental attachment apparatus of the adjacent natural teeth thereby maintaining the interdental papilla. The present clinical series exemplifies the clinical advantages of this inverted body‐shift implant design in ITRT in various clinical scenarios in (1) single tooth replacement in a Type 1 intact socket with a thin periodontal phenotype, (2) single tooth replacement in a Type 2 socket with a dentoalveolar dehiscence of the labial bone plate, and (3) multiple adjacent teeth replacement of two maxillary central incisor. Clinical significance The macro‐hybrid design implant with a prosthetic angle correction and body‐shift feature in a singular form provides greater midfacial gap distance as well as tooth‐to‐implant distance to preserve the interdental attachment of the adjacent natural teeth thereby leaving the interdental papilla undisturbed, without sacrificing higher primary stability afforded by larger diameter implants.