## 1 Introduction  
Dental implants have become a widely accepted and effective solution for tooth replacement, demonstrating high long-term survival rates [1]. A variety of dental implant types currently is available on the medical market, and selection depends on clinical and anatomical considerations, patient health status, and prosthetic requirements. Implants can be classified based on shape, material, and surface treatment. In terms of shape, cylindrical and tapered implants are available, with tapered implants often preferred in areas with limited bone width or high esthetic demand due to their superior primary stability [2]. Regarding material, titanium implants are the gold standard due to their excellent biocompatibility and capacity for osseointegration, whereas zirconia implants offer better esthetics and reduced plaque accumulation [3,4]. Rough surfaces can enhance osseointegration, while smooth surfaces lower the risk of peri-implantitis but tend to integrate more slowly [5,6]. Despite the high success rate of dental implants, failures can occur due to a range of contributing factors such as peri-implantitis, implant fracture, micromovement during healing, and mechanical complications like screw loosening [7]. Implant failure can result in both functional and esthetic concerns, often necessitating reimplantation [8]. Reimplantation, when performed with thorough evaluation, meticulous planning, proper surgical techniques, and appropriate postoperative care, can serve as a viable option for patients with failed implants. However, it remains a complex procedure requiring careful consideration of multiple factors, including the underlying cause of implant failure, the quality of the surrounding bone and soft tissue, and the patient's overall health status [9]. The success rate of dental implant reimplantation has been reported to range from 68% to 98.9% [10]. Studies indicate that reimplantation outcomes are more favorable for implants that failed due to mechanical complications, such as screw loosening or fracture, compared to those that failed due to peri-implantitis [5]. Several factors influence the success rate of reimplantation, including the extent of bone loss, the type of implant system used, the interval between implant removal and reimplantation, and the presence of systemic conditions or other risk factors for implant failure [11]. Furthermore, reimplantation tends to have a lower success rate than initial implant placement due to bone loss, defect formation, and scar tissue development, which can hinder osseointegration [12]. Evaluating the implant site immediately after removal is crucial for assessing its condition and ensuring morphological stability [13]. Immediate reconstruction at the time of implant removal has been proposed as a method to preserve alveolar ridge width. However, despite the increasing popularity of reimplantation, there is limited study on the morphological stability and potential complications associated with immediate reconstruction [14]. A comprehensive assessment of dental implant placement in previously failed sites, including preoperative evaluation, postoperative healing, and morphological stability, may provide valuable clinical insights [15]. A staged approach can be applied, where bone grafting is performed after a healing period, especially in sites compromised by infection or extensive bone loss [15,16]. The selection of graft materials, including both bone substitutes and barrier membranes, significantly influences the outcomes of alveolar ridge augmentation and subsequent dental implant success [17]. Various bone graft materials--such as autografts, allografts, xenografts, and synthetic substitutes--exhibit distinct properties that affect bone regeneration [18]. For instance, autografts are often considered the gold standard due to their osteogenic potential, while allografts and xenografts primarily provide osteoconductive and osteoinductive scaffolding [19,20].