Pink esthetic and radiological scores around immediate implants placed in the esthetic zone – Socket-Shield Technique versus Immediate Conventional Technique: A Pilot Study

Kumar, Payal Rajender; Vikram, Jay; Kher, Udatta; Tunkiwala, Ali; Sawhney, Hemant

doi:10.4103/jisp.jisp_278_20

Cited by 2 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, 48 publications were selected for full‐text analysis. Of these, 18 studies were excluded due to the following reasons: in 3 no RP procedure was used in any group 11–13 ; in 4, the MI group could not be determined 14–17 ; 2 full‐text articles could not be accessed 18,19 ; 1 only used bone grafts when considered necessary by the clinician 20 ; 6 presented less than 10 cases in each group 21–26 ; and 2 presented only descriptive data 27,28 . The selection resulted in 30 publications for analysis 29–58 .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Minimal invasiveness in the alveolar ridge preservation, with or without concomitant implant placement

Araújo

Hürzeler

Dias

et al. 2022

Periodontology 2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the benefit of ridge preservation (RP) with minimally invasive (MI) approaches with or without concomitant implant placement on morbidity, esthetics, and patient‐related outcomes. Three Internet sources were used to search for appropriate papers. The search strategy was designed to include any clinical study published on RP with MI approaches such as flapless surgery, socket shield and socket sealing techniques and, use of biological agents. Characteristics of the individual studies, regarding methodological aspects, quantitative and qualitative data were extracted. The potential risk of bias was estimated, and the acquired evidence was graded. Independent screening of 860 reports resulted in 26 included original articles. Nine publications evaluated MI approaches for RP without concomitant implant placement. Eleven studies evaluated interventions for RP with immediate implant placement (IIP). Six studies compared RP with IIP vs RP without IIP. This systematic review found that MI approaches in most of the studies failed to improve clinical variables regarding morbidity, esthetics, and patient‐related outcomes. Based on the limited number of studies analyzed and the methodological discrepancies observed, it is not possible to confirm that MI approaches promote a significant benefit when applied to RP procedures.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Minimal invasiveness in the alveolar ridge preservation, with or without concomitant implant placement

Araújo

Hürzeler

Dias

et al. 2022

Periodontology 2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Twelve RCTs involved 398 patients (both genders) with a mean age of about 33.74 years, who received 414 immediate dental implants [23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34]. All RCTs were conducted in a university clinic, with six studies in Egypt, three in India, and one in each Iraq, Italy, and China, and the follow-up periods ranged from three months to three years.…”

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All RCTs were conducted in a university clinic, with six studies in Egypt, three in India, and one in each Iraq, Italy, and China, and the follow-up periods ranged from three months to three years. All studies were individual-randomized clinical trials, except the studies by Abd-Elrahman et al [27] and Kumar et al [32], which were cluster-randomized clinical trials (with the patient as a cluster, i.e., more than one dental implant per patient); however, all RCTs used a parallel-arm design, except for Abdel-Raheim et al [26], who used a split-mouth approach.…”

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In all studies, a provisional restoration was placed immediately after surgery in both groups, except for four studies [23,[30][31][32], which delayed prosthesis loading to four months after surgery. Table 1 presents details of the main characteristics of the included studies.…”

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Socket Shield Technique to Improve the Outcomes of Immediate Implant: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The socket shield technique (SST) could address the challenges in immediate implant placement by minimizing post-extraction bone resorption while maintaining soft tissue levels. This study aimed to summarize the available evidence and systematically assess the effectiveness of SST immediate implant placement regarding all outcomes (bone loss, esthetics, implant stability, probing depth, complications, and survival rate). Methods: We searched seven electronic databases through April 2023 to identify randomized clinical trials that assessed the effect of immediate implant placed with SST (test group) versus other implant placement protocols without SST. The risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane’s randomized trial quality assessment Tool (RoB 2.0). Random-effects meta-analysis was conducted, with mean difference and 95% confidence intervals (MD, 95% CI) as effect estimates. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. Results: Twelve RCTs, involving 414 immediate implants, placed in 398 patients, were included. Meta-analyses revealed that the immediate implants placed with SST had a statistically significant decrease in horizontal (MD = −0.28, 95% CI [−0.37, −0.19], p < 0.0001), vertical (MD = −0.85, 95% CI [−1.12, −0.58], p < 0.0001), and crestal (MD = −0.35, 95% CI [−0.56, −0.13], p = 0.002) bone loss, as well as probing depth (MD = −0.64, 95% CI [−0.99, −0.29], p = 0.0003). Additionally, SST had a significant increase in implant stability (MD = 3.46, 95 % CI [1.22, 5.69], p = 0.002) and pink esthetic score (MD = 1.60, 95% CI [0.90, 2.30], p < 0.0001). Only two studies reported shield exposure incidences in the SST group; however, all studies revealed no implant failure and a 100% survival rate. The evidence certainty was assessed as very low. Conclusions: Based on limited evidence, SST was more effective in minimizing bone resorption and improving implant stability and esthetic outcomes than conventional immediate implant placement. Still, SST could not be recommended as a routine clinical protocol due to the lack of a standardized surgical approach; thus, further high-quality RCTs are required to support this conclusion.

show abstract

Pink esthetic and radiological scores around immediate implants placed in the esthetic zone – Socket-Shield Technique versus Immediate Conventional Technique: A Pilot Study

Cited by 2 publications

References 15 publications

Minimal invasiveness in the alveolar ridge preservation, with or without concomitant implant placement

Minimal invasiveness in the alveolar ridge preservation, with or without concomitant implant placement

Socket Shield Technique to Improve the Outcomes of Immediate Implant: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About