case_images: PMC10540750_01
case_images: (a) full smile showing a medium lip line with ceramic crowns on teeth #11, #12, from #14 to #16, and from #23 to #26; (b) frontal view showing a thick periodontium with a gingival inflammation on tooth #11, black triangles between lower anterior teeth, non-carious cervical lesions on teeth #44 and #45, and the presence of ceramic crowns on several upper and lower teeth; (c) a close up photo on central incisors showing the healthy pink gingiva with orange peel texture on tooth #11; (d) occlusal view showing the normal symmetrical gingival shape and volume between teeth #11 and #21; (e) a periapical radiographic image on tooth #11 revealing the unfavorable crown/root ratio; (f) para-axial cut on tooth #11 presenting a palatal vertical fracture.
case_images: AIM-31-226-g002.jpg
case_images: PMC10540750_01_AIM-31-226-g002.jpg
case_images: fig2
case_images: A palatal vertical fracture was noticed on a para-axial cut on tooth #11 (Figure 2).
case_images: (a) occlusal view showing the alveolar socket after atraumatic extraction of tooth #11; (b) periapical radiographic image presenting the alveolar socket after atraumatic extraction of tooth #11; (c) occlusal view of the implant after its placement; (d) periapical radiographic image of the implant on site #11, note the ideal mesio-distal position and axis; (e) frontal view showing the polished provisional crown. Note the xenograft particles on the gingival margin of the provisional restoration; (f) periapical radiographic image presenting the immediate implant placement with immediate provisionalization.
case_images: AIM-31-226-g003.jpg
case_images: PMC10540750_01_AIM-31-226-g003.jpg
case_images: fig3
case_images: A radiographic periapical image was taken to assess the final result (Figure 3).
case_images: (a) two weeks post-op close up frontal view photo. Note the scalloped, normal shaped, orange peel appearance gingiva on site #11; (b) six weeks post-op close up frontal view photo showing a healthy gingival appearance on implant site #11; (c) three months post-op close up frontal view photo showing the preservation of the healthy gingival appearance on implant site #11; (d) three months post-op occlusal view showing the preservation of the normal gingival shape and volume on implant site #11; (e) three months post-op periapical radiographic image. Note the absence of cervical bone loss and absence of any radiolucent or abnormal radiographic image.
case_images: AIM-31-226-g004.jpg
case_images: PMC10540750_01_AIM-31-226-g004.jpg
case_images: fig4
case_images: The periapical follow-up radiograph shows the parallelism between the implant #11 and the adjacent implant #12 and tooth #21 (Figure 4).
case_images: (a) frontal view showing the good esthetic appearance of the definitive crown on implant site #11; (b) close up frontal view photo of the definitive crown on implant site #11. Note the symmetrical healthy gingival appearance between the two central incisors crowns; (c) close up occlusal view photo presenting the symmetrical shape and volume of the healthy gingiva on the two central incisors; (d) full smile photo after definitive crown placement on implant site #11; (e) periapical radiographic image on implant site #11 after definitive crown cemented on the definitive abutment. Note the excellent crown fitting and absence of any gap between the crown and the abutment.
case_images: AIM-31-226-g005.jpg
case_images: PMC10540750_01_AIM-31-226-g005.jpg
case_images: fig5
case_images: A radiograph was taken to ensure that the crown fit perfectly over the abutment (Figure 5). 
case_images: (a) four years post-op full smile photo showing the well esthetic result; (b) four years post-op frontal view photo; (c) four years post-op close up frontal view photo. Note the stability of the healthy appearance gingiva on implant site #11; (d) four years post-op close up occlusal view photo showing minor reduced gingival volume on implant site #11 in comparison with tooth #21; (e) four years post op periapical radiographic image on implant site #11, note the absence of cervical bone loss or any radiolucent or abnormal radiographic image; (f) para-axial cut on implant site #11 showing an ideal bucco-palatal implant placement, absence of any abnormal radiographic image and the stability and preservation of the buccal plate four years after implant placement surgery.
case_images: AIM-31-226-g006.jpg
case_images: PMC10540750_01_AIM-31-226-g006.jpg
case_images: fig6
case_images: A CBCT was performed, and the para-axial cuts revealed an intact remaining buccal plate as well as the ideal bucco-palatal placement of implant #11 (Figure 6). 
case_images: (a) six years post-op full smile photo showing a perfect esthetic stability; (b) six years post-op frontal view photo; (c)(d) six years post-op close up frontal view photos showing the healthy gingiva with orange peel texture on implant site #11; (e) six years post-op close up occlusal view photo showing minor reduced buccal gingival volume on implant site #11 in comparison with tooth #21; (f) six years post-op periapical radiographic image on implant site #11, note the stability of cervical bone level and absence of any radiolucent or abnormal radiographic image.
case_images: AIM-31-226-g007.jpg
case_images: PMC10540750_01_AIM-31-226-g007.jpg
case_images: fig7
case_images: The radiographic periapical image showed the absence of any bone loss (Figure 7). Figure 7, (a) six years post-op full smile photo showing a perfect esthetic stability; (b) six years post-op frontal view photo; (c)(d) six years post-op close up frontal view photos showing the healthy gingiva with orange peel texture on implant site #11; (e) six years post-op close up occlusal view photo showing minor reduced buccal gingival volume on implant site #11 in comparison with tooth #21; (f) six years post-op periapical radiographic image on implant site #11, note the stability of cervical bone level and absence of any radiolucent or abnormal radiographic image.