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

Abstract

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

Management of Early Implant Failure Associated with A Remnant: A Case Report

“…96%. 17 The mean marginal bone loss observed with this technique was comparable to traditional methods (0.39 ± 0.28 mm vs. 1.00 ± 0.55 mm). However, a contrasting study revealed a 78.78% incidence of peri-implant buccal/crestal bone loss and a 12.12% rate of shield exposure.…”

Preserving Peri-Implant Soft Tissue Health: A Case Report on Immediate Implant Placement Using the Socket Shield Technique

“…A study conducted by Bramanti et al (2018) using SST for a single implant showed better marginal bone levels and Pink Esthetic Score (PES) values after a three-year follow-up [12]. Oliva et al (2023), in a systematic review, analysed the mean values of marginal bone loss (0.39±0.28 mm), pink esthetic score (12.08±1.18), buccal bone plate resorption (0.32±0.10 mm) and implant survival rate of 98.6% [13]. Gluckman et al, 2017, in a retrospective study with 128 patients with SST conducted for a year, analysed biological complications of 16 exposures, three infections, and one migration (19.5%) with a 96.1% survival rate [14].…”

Técnica Socket Shield associada a reabilitação com implante imediato em área estética: Relato de caso

“…A técnica, conforme descrita por Hürzeler et al (2010), consiste na manutenção in situ de um pequeno fragmento do terço vestibular da raiz, de aproximadamente 1,5 mm de espessura, variando de caso a caso, para preservar o ligamento periodontal e, por consequência, a tábua óssea vestibular, a fim de preservar a arquitetura óssea e gengival, que interfere diretamente na estética rosa. No entanto, é importante salientar que só é possível realizá-la em unidades com saúde periodontal, sem mobilidade e/ou qualquer tipo de inflamação, para que não haja peri-implantite e até mesmo a perda do implante (Siomrpas et al, 2018;Mourya et al, 2019;Oliva et al, 2022;Gharpure & Bhatavadekar., 2017;Mitsias et al, 2017;Hinze et al, 2018Apud Oliva et al, 2022. A TSS é feita em associação com o implante imediato, este sendo instalado por detrás do "escudo" (fragmento dentário), para preservar a altura do rebordo alveolar e a arquitetura gengival.…”