Hey Dr B,
I guess, there's been more replies to your post than you expected! Understandable as many of us already believe we have set the benchmarks for the rest of the field to follow..!
While it is true to suggest that several of the community that replied to your posts are extremely knowledgeable and "experienced" folks, it may also be appropriate to note that your question was one that everyone has trampled upon and gone past to get to the stage where we would now ask "beginners" to tread with caution!
Found Dr Ben Eby's post most pertinent, am sure you got several of the answers you were looking for from there!
Even so, let's look at "WHY" one is better off not attempting an immediate extraction implant in the maxillary Molar site.
1) The Maxillary bone is largely comprised of Trabecular, cancellous bone that is not as dense as the more cortical bone of the Mandible. This makes it more susceptible to resorption in the immediate post extraction period.
If you were to follow - the 'Time Sequence for healing' graph published by Cruess and Dumont (Lippincott, 1975), and put in place M H Amler's "Extraction socket healing" Journal of Oral Path, Oral Med & Oral Surg , 1969.. in perspective, you would know that there exists a differential in the healing rates between apical and coronal areas of an extraction socket..(Look up "Jumping distance" of Osteoblasts.. Daniel Buser et al will help).
This causes much of the coronal height of an extraction socket to be lost in the early post extraction period, almost upto 30 -40% in the first 11 months (Wang & Kiyanobu)
This being the case, the imediate extraction implant would necessarily have to be placed considerably deep within the socket to thereafter continue to be subcrestal after the bone loss has taken place after the extraction -implant procedure.
The protocols for immediate implant placement dictate that the platform of the implant should be ideally a couple of mm inferior to the crest (or the Gingival zenith, depending on the gingival biotype).
The Maxillary molar tooth often does not help the cause by virtue of its proximity to the antral (Sinus) floor.
You would require to engage the implant in a minimum of 1.5 to 3mm of bone beyond the apex of the tooth(socket) in order to gain a Primary Stability that would be required to help facilitate osseointegration.
This maybe difficult in most cases (particularly if there was a pre-existing peri-apical pathology that may have taken some of that vital bone away already)of First Maxillary molars.
The Crown that would eventually be placed on the implant would definitely not be Prosthetically Loaded differently from a Crown that would be placed on a Delayed Implant (in a healed extraction site) in the same region. Hence, no reason why a change in angulation or position should be sought if the implant were to be placed at the time of extraction.
The Septum between the three roots or slightly more at the expense of the inter-radicular bone between the Mesio-buccal and disto-buccal roots would be the preferred position.
Aside from these considerations, gaining primary closure in the region after extraction even without implant placement can be quite an enterprise by itself... and to have an immediate extraction implant in the Molar region be exposed to the elements from lack of closure or from a gaping wound in the early days of post-implant healing, would just make the whole process more unpredictable.
In a nut shell, as almost all of us who have done it before and prefer not to do it now, you may be wont to try it out (use Bruce's advice and find a relative or someone who will keep your practice out of harm's way if things don't turn out as expected!)
It is a fun learning experience (after "EXPERIENCE" was famously defined as "THE CUMULATIVE RESULT OF FAILURES" !!!
If its a patient that's going to get you referrals, just go the graft way and do a delayed implant placement!
Cheers