case_images: PMC2846673_01
case_images: a, b) Pre-operative photograph and radiograph; c- i) operative photographs and radiograph; j-m) post-operative photographs and radiographs
case_images: JISP-13-32-g001.jpg
case_images: PMC2846673_01_JISP-13-32-g001.jpg
case_images: F0001
case_images: Clinical and radiological evaluation revealed adequate apico-occlusal alveolar bone, but extensive loss of the labial plate [Figure 1a and b]. The flap was approximated and sutured with interrupted 3-0 Mersilk [Figure 1c-i]. The clinical and radiographic appearances at six months and after one year show good aesthetic result and acceptable osseo-integration of the implants [Figure 1j-m].
case_images: PMC2846673_02
case_images: a, b) Pre-operative photograph and radiograph; c-f) operative photographs and radiograph during socket preservation; g, h) 1-month and three-month radiograph post socket preservation; i-k) implant placement photographs; l-n) post-operative photographs and radiograph
case_images: JISP-13-32-g002.jpg
case_images: PMC2846673_02_JISP-13-32-g002.jpg
case_images: F0002
case_images: Clinical and radiological evaluation of tooth number 44 revealed infected root stump with evidence of periapical pathology [Figure 2a and b]. A foil was trimmed to size and shape and placed over it and periodontal dressing was placed over it [Figure 2c-f]. After 10 weeks, clinical evaluation showed adequate keratinised mucosa and radiograph revealed good bone formation [Figure 2g and h]. The bone appeared quite similar to the adjacent bone during the osteotomy as bone adjacent to the site were also prepared to receive implants at the same time [Figure 2i-k]. The clinical appearance after six months reveals good aesthetics and adequate amount of keratinised mucosa, and radiographs revealed good osseo-integration of the implant [Figure 2l-n].
case_images: PMC2846673_03
case_images: a, b) Pre-operative photograph and radiograph; c-e) post-operative photographs and radiograph
case_images: JISP-13-32-g003.jpg
case_images: PMC2846673_03_JISP-13-32-g003.jpg
case_images: F0003
case_images: On examination of the edentulous site, there was a vertical and horizontal deficient ridge (Seibert's Class III) for which the patient was offered the option of initial augmentation followed by subsequent implant placement [Figure 3a and b]. The clinical and radiographic appearances at six months and one year show good aesthetic result and acceptable osseo-integration of the implants [Figure 3c-e].
case_images: PMC2846673_04
case_images: a) Pre-operative photograph; b-e) post-operative photographs and radiograph
case_images: JISP-13-32-g004.jpg
case_images: PMC2846673_04_JISP-13-32-g004.jpg
case_images: F0004
case_images: Clinical and radiological evaluation was performed [Figure 4a]. The clinical and radiographic appearances at six months and at one year show good aesthetic result and acceptable osseo-integration of the implants [Figure 4b-e].
case_images: PMC2846673_05
case_images: a) Pre-operative radiograph; b-e) operative photographs and radiograph; f, g) post-operative photograph and radiograph
case_images: JISP-13-32-g005.jpg
case_images: PMC2846673_05_JISP-13-32-g005.jpg
case_images: F0005
case_images: Clinical and radiological evaluation [Figure 5a] revealed available native bone height of 7-8 mm at both the sites. Two single piece implants$ (4.5 x 10 mm) were placed [Figure 5b-e]. The clinical and radiographic appearances at six months and one year show good aesthetic result and acceptable osseo-integration of the implants [Figure 5f and g].
case_images: PMC2846673_06
case_images: a, b) Pre-operative photographs; c, d) operative photograph and radiograph; e) post-operative photograph
case_images: JISP-13-32-g006.jpg
case_images: PMC2846673_06_JISP-13-32-g006.jpg
case_images: F0006
case_images: An 18-year-old female patient was referred from the Department of Orthodontics for restoration with implant in relation the tooth number 22, the space for which was gained orthodontically [Figure 6a and b]. Clinical and radiological evaluation was performed and it was decided to perform a single stage implant placement$ (2.4 x 10 mm) [Figure 6c and d]. The clinical and radiographic appearances at three months show good aesthetic result and acceptable osseo-integration of the implants [Figure 6e].