Effect of socket‐shield technique on alveolar ridge soft and hard tissue in dogs

Zhang, Zhengchuan; Dong, Yun‐wei; Yang, Jiliang; Xu, Ruogu; Deng, Feilong

doi:10.1111/jcpe.13073

Cited by 14 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, placing the implant in contact with the socket shield may unintentionally dislodge or even fracture it 16 . The gap between the implant and the buccal root fragment was left ungrafted for spontaneous bone fill during healing as grafting this gap was reported to be of limited clinical benefit 25 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of the soft and hard peri‐implant tissue dimensional changes around single immediate implants in the esthetic zone with socket shield technique versus using xenograft: A randomized controlled clinical trial

Atef

Barbary

Dahrous

et al. 2021

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective Compare the dimensional changes of the peri‐implant soft and hard tissues clinically and radiographically around single immediate implants in the esthetic zone with socket shield technique versus filling the buccal gap with xenograft. Materials and methods Forty‐two patients with a single non‐restorable tooth in the esthetic zone replaced with an immediate implant were randomly assigned either to the socket shield technique (test) or to grafting the buccal gap with xenograft (control). The vertical and horizontal buccal bone resorption were measured 6‐months following implant placement. The esthetic outcomes were evaluated by assessing the Pink Esthetic Score (PES) and the amount of midfacial mucosal alteration, in addition to patient satisfaction assessment through a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) based questionnaire 1‐year following implant restoration. Results The present study showed that the socket shield group yielded significantly less vertical and horizontal buccal bone resorption of 0.35 (±0.62) mm and 0.29 (±0.34) mm compared to 1.71 (±1.02) mm and 1.45 (±0.72) mm in the xenograft group respectively. Also, there was a significantly greater midfacial mucosal recession in the xenograft group of 0.466 (±0.58) mm compared to midfacial mucosal coronal migration of 0.45 (±0.75) mm in the socket shield group. However, there was no statistically significant difference regarding the total PES and patient satisfaction in both treatment groups. Conclusion The socket shield technique can preserve hard and soft peri‐implant tissues following immediate implant placement. (http://clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT03684356).

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of the soft and hard peri‐implant tissue dimensional changes around single immediate implants in the esthetic zone with socket shield technique versus using xenograft: A randomized controlled clinical trial

Atef

Barbary

Dahrous

et al. 2021

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Zhang et al (2019) [ 47 ] compared 32 extraction sockets divided into four groups in a canine study. The first group (T1) was left with the bone clot, the second (T2) was filled up with a xenograft bovine bone substitute (Bioss Collagen Geistlich), in the third (T3), the socket shield was performed in conjunction with the natural blood clot, in the fourth T4) a xenograft bovine bone substitute (Bioss Collagen Geistlich) was added to the socket shield.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Immediate Implants in the Aesthetic Zone: Is Socket Shield Technique a Predictable Treatment Option? A Narrative Review

Angelis

Signore

Alsayed

et al. 2021

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

(1) Background. Dental implant placement in the anterior region requires extreme precision due to relatively high aesthetic demand. This narrative review aimed to analyse some of the available clinical studies of the socket-shield technique and determine its viability for dental implant survival/success and complication rates. (2) Methods. An electronic search for publications was performed using the Cochrane, PubMed-MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases. All electronic searches included human clinical and animal studies and were performed by three independent examiners. (3) Results. A total of 1383 records were identified with the initial search strategies, but only 25 full texts + five abstracts clinical studies were kept after the recruitment criteria screening. The technical details, advantages, and limitations of the techniques were illustrated. (4) Conclusion. Within the limitations of the present review, it would be merely justified that immediate dental implant placement in conjunction with the socket-shield technique can be a promising strategy for dental implant therapy.

show abstract

“…By using the keyword search “socket‐shield” OR “socket shield” OR “partial extraction” OR “root membrane”, 214 documents were found. After the selection process and exclusion of non‐relevant documents, 39 articles related to the topic were analysed (). Generally, these publications reported promising results with this technique.…”

Section: Figmentioning

confidence: 99%

The (in)adequacy of translational research in dentistry

Faggion

2020

European J Oral Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Translational research, as the name suggests, “translates” research findings into clinical practice to improve the health of human beings. The translational process builds on information from experiments conducted at a basic level (i.e., in vitro and/or animal studies) and progresses over experimental human studies for efficacy, efficiency, and safety to implementation. Therefore, all steps in the process should be based on studies conducted with the highest methodological quality possible in order to provide accurate and useful information. Furthermore, the systematic dissemination of new procedures/techniques should be done only when they have been proven to be effective and safe. This focus article describes examples of new techniques/procedures in dentistry that have not resulted from an adequate translational research process since the initial evidence was published. These procedures are generally characterised by lack of good evidence, particularly on their potential harms, and lack of adequate chronological order, regarding the translational research process (i.e., human research being conducted before animal research). Even so, they seem to be widely disseminated, and their promotion involves a wide range of sources, including social media. Some guidance is proposed to improve the quality of the translational research process in dentistry, as well as the level of awareness of all parties involved with the use of this research: clinicians, researchers, and patients. By improving the translational research process, optimization of the application and use of these resources, with less risk to the patients, is expected.

show abstract

Effect of socket‐shield technique on alveolar ridge soft and hard tissue in dogs

Cited by 14 publications

References 21 publications

Comparison of the soft and hard peri‐implant tissue dimensional changes around single immediate implants in the esthetic zone with socket shield technique versus using xenograft: A randomized controlled clinical trial

Comparison of the soft and hard peri‐implant tissue dimensional changes around single immediate implants in the esthetic zone with socket shield technique versus using xenograft: A randomized controlled clinical trial

Immediate Implants in the Aesthetic Zone: Is Socket Shield Technique a Predictable Treatment Option? A Narrative Review

The (in)adequacy of translational research in dentistry

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About