Affiliation:
1. Department of Innovative Technologies in Medicine and Dentistry, University of Chieti–Pescara, 66100 Chieti, Italy
2. College of Dental Medicine, QU Health, Qatar University, Doha 2713, Qatar
3. Health Affairs Directorate, Egyptian Ministry of Health and Population, Banisuif 62511, Egypt
4. Department of Research, Bioface/PgO/UCAM, Calle Cuareim 1483, Montevideo 11100, Uruguay
5. Department of Biotechnology, Universidad Católica de Murcia (UCAM), 30107 Murcia, Spain
6. Department of Interdisciplinary Medicine, University of Bari “Aldo Moro”, 70121 Bari, Italy
Abstract
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.
Subject
General Earth and Planetary Sciences,General Environmental Science
Reference47 articles.
1. Immediate One-Stage Postextraction Implant: A Human Clinical and Histologic Case Report;Cornelini;Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant.,2000
2. Narrow Single Tooth Implants for Congenitally Missing Maxillary Lateral Incisors: A 5-Year Follow-Up;Scarano;J. Biol. Regul. Homeost. Agents,2019
3. Bone Regeneration in Aesthetic Areas Using Titanium Micromesh. Three Case Reports;Scarano;Oral Implant.,2017
4. Optimizing Esthetics for Implant Restorations in the Anterior Maxilla: Anatomic and Surgical Considerations;Buser;Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant.,2004
5. Clinical Relevance of Dimensional Bone and Soft Tissue Alterations Post-Extraction in Esthetic Sites;Chappuis;Periodontol. 2000,2017