Radiographic and Esthetic Evaluation Following Immediate Implant Placement with or without Socket Shield and Delayed Implant Placement Following Socket Preservation in the Maxillary Esthetic Region – A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

Santhanakrishnan, Muthukumar; Subramanian, Vedavalli; Ramesh, Nithyakalyani; Kamaleeshwari, R.

doi:10.2147/ccide.s332687

Cited by 9 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…That result is similar to Abd-Elrahman et al where the mean age was 30.9±5.5 in both groups and also similar to Santhanakrishnan et al where the mean age was 30.6±6.3 and 29.8±9.7, CBT was 1.3±0.1 and 1.3±0.1, PES was 13.0 (2.0) and 13.0 (2.0) in SST group and IIP group, respectively. 16,17 According to Sun et al study, 66.7% of patients were implanted with a 4.00 diameter in both groups and 86.7% of patients had trauma-related extraction which is similar to our study where 63.6% of patients were implanted with a 4.0 mm diameter and trauma was most (72.7%) common reason for extraction. 18 The socket shield technique (SST) creates a novel treatment by completely retaining the alveolar ridge, which aids in maintaining pink aesthetics.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

Comparative outcome of socket shield method and conventional immediate implant implantation with immediate temporization- a 10 years follow-up

Khan¹,

Zahan²

2023

Int J Res Med Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Dental implants are now regarded as an effective treatment option for replacing missing teeth. The objective was to evaluate the socket shield approach with immediate temporization to the conventional instantaneous implant with immediate temporization utilizing the parameters of horizontal and vertical dimensional bone loss, crestal bone thickness (CBT) and pink esthetic score (PES). Methods: This prospective study was carried out at Banasree Dental and German Dental implant surgery centers from December 2010 to December 2020 where 74 patients who had non-restorable maxillary teeth in the esthetic region were conducted and evaluated for implant settlement. The allocated individuals were divided into two groups immediate implant with socket shield group (study group, n=22) and the conventional immediate implant placement group (control group, n=52). SPSS version 21.0 was used to analyze all of the data. Results: Mean value of crestal bone thickness (CBT) at the pre-operative time was 1.31±0.2 in both groups but at the 6 months follow-up time it was 1.2±0.22 and 1.07±0.21, at the 24 months follow-up time it was 1.13±0.24 and 0.99±0.20 and at the 60 months follow-up time in was 1.05±0.27 and 0.79±0.15 and at the 120 months follow-up time it was 1.03±0.29 and 0.69±0.17 in the study and control group respectively. In the study group, the mean value of pink esthetic score was 11.45±1.6 at 6 months follow-up time, 12±0.89 at 24 months, 12.5±0.87 at the 60 months and 12.5±0.86 at the 120 months follow-up time whereas in the control group, it was 11±1.32, 10±1.52, 8.9±1.63 and 7.5±1.55, respectively. Conclusions: The SST group revealed minimal reduction in CBT, horizontal and vertical bone loss and a superior PES compared to conventional immediate implant.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

Comparative outcome of socket shield method and conventional immediate implant implantation with immediate temporization- a 10 years follow-up

Khan¹,

Zahan²

2023

Int J Res Med Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Among the 17 studies involved in the review, 7 were retrospective studies [ 9 10 11 18 19 20 21 ], 7 were randomized controlled studies [ 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ] and 3 were prospective studies [ 29 30 31 ]. All studies presented level III evidence.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The socket shield technique and its complications, implant survival rate, and clinical outcomes: a systematic review

Oliva

Capogreco

Murmura

et al. 2023

J Periodontal Implant Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the effectiveness of the socket shield technique (SST), an innovative surgical method introduced in 2010, for reducing buccal bone plate resorption. Methods The review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. Clinical studies conducted in humans and investigating the SST were searched on PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, Web of Knowledge, and Google Scholar in November and December 2021. The implant survival rate, percentage of complications, and clinical parameters (marginal bone loss [MBL], pink esthetic score [PES], and buccal bone plate resorption [BBPR]) were analyzed using the collected data. Results The initial search resulted in 132 articles. After article screening, the full texts of 19 studies were read and 17 articles were finally included in the review. In total, 656 implants were installed with the SST. Nine of the 656 implants experienced failure, resulting in an implant survival rate of 98.6%. The percentage of complications was about 3.81%. The analysis of clinical parameters (MBL, PES, and BBPR), showed favorable results for the SST. The mean MBL in implants placed with the SST was 0.39±0.28 mm versus 1.00±0.55 mm in those placed without the SST. PES had a better outcome in the SST group, with an average of 12.08±1.18 versus 10.77±0.74. BBPR had more favorable results in implants placed with the SST (0.32±0.10 mm) than in implants placed with the standard technique (1.05±0.18 mm). Conclusions The SST could be considered beneficial for preserving the buccal bone plate. However, since only 7 of the included studies were long-term randomized controlled trials comparing the SST with the standard implant placement technique, the conclusions drawn from this systematic review should be interpreted with caution. Trial Registration PROSPERO Identifier: CRD42020180637

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%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Radiographic and Esthetic Evaluation Following Immediate Implant Placement with or without Socket Shield and Delayed Implant Placement Following Socket Preservation in the Maxillary Esthetic Region – A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

Cited by 9 publications

References 43 publications

Comparative outcome of socket shield method and conventional immediate implant implantation with immediate temporization- a 10 years follow-up

Comparative outcome of socket shield method and conventional immediate implant implantation with immediate temporization- a 10 years follow-up

The socket shield technique and its complications, implant survival rate, and clinical outcomes: a systematic review

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About