Comparative evaluation of conventional and socket-shield techniques on maxillary esthetics following immediate implant placement in fresh extraction sockets: A randomized controlled trial.

Q2 Dentistry Journal of Indian Society of Periodontology Pub Date : 2024-07-01 Epub Date: 2025-01-06 DOI:10.4103/jisp.jisp_13_24
Farhan Durrani, Aishwarya Pandey, Shweta Ahlawat, Ekta Kumari, S U Gokila Vani, Sakshi Agarwal, P G Naveen Kumar
{"title":"Comparative evaluation of conventional and socket-shield techniques on maxillary esthetics following immediate implant placement in fresh extraction sockets: A randomized controlled trial.","authors":"Farhan Durrani, Aishwarya Pandey, Shweta Ahlawat, Ekta Kumari, S U Gokila Vani, Sakshi Agarwal, P G Naveen Kumar","doi":"10.4103/jisp.jisp_13_24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Dental implants in fresh extraction sockets of the maxillary esthetic area are technique-sensitive procedures where retaining a buccal root segment can enhance periodontium preservation and esthetics. This study aims to compare marginal bone levels and esthetic outcomes between conventional immediate implant placement and the socket-shield technique in fresh maxillary extraction sockets.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Twenty-four patients with type 1 extraction sockets were included in this randomized trial and assigned to either conventional immediate implant placement or the socket-shield technique. Implant survival, crestal bone levels, and pink esthetic scores (PES) were evaluated at 8 months (temporary prosthesis), 12 months, and 36 months (final crowns).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All implant-supported restorations were successful within the study's observation period. The socket-shield technique showed significantly lower marginal bone loss (e.g. 1.40 ± 0.29 mm vs. 1.70 ± 0.36 mm at 36 months; <i>P</i> = 0.040) and superior PES (e.g., 10.50 ± 0.90 vs. 9.36 ± 0.98 at 36 months; <i>P</i> = 0.008) compared to the conventional technique. However, the technique's complexity underscores the need for expertise and careful execution to optimize tissue preservation in the maxillary esthetic zone.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The socket-shield technique better preserves hard and soft tissues around implant-retained prostheses than conventional implant placement in maxillary esthetic regions. Further studies with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up are required to validate these findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":15890,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Indian Society of Periodontology","volume":"28 4","pages":"468-477"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11864334/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Indian Society of Periodontology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jisp.jisp_13_24","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Dental implants in fresh extraction sockets of the maxillary esthetic area are technique-sensitive procedures where retaining a buccal root segment can enhance periodontium preservation and esthetics. This study aims to compare marginal bone levels and esthetic outcomes between conventional immediate implant placement and the socket-shield technique in fresh maxillary extraction sockets.

Materials and methods: Twenty-four patients with type 1 extraction sockets were included in this randomized trial and assigned to either conventional immediate implant placement or the socket-shield technique. Implant survival, crestal bone levels, and pink esthetic scores (PES) were evaluated at 8 months (temporary prosthesis), 12 months, and 36 months (final crowns).

Results: All implant-supported restorations were successful within the study's observation period. The socket-shield technique showed significantly lower marginal bone loss (e.g. 1.40 ± 0.29 mm vs. 1.70 ± 0.36 mm at 36 months; P = 0.040) and superior PES (e.g., 10.50 ± 0.90 vs. 9.36 ± 0.98 at 36 months; P = 0.008) compared to the conventional technique. However, the technique's complexity underscores the need for expertise and careful execution to optimize tissue preservation in the maxillary esthetic zone.

Conclusion: The socket-shield technique better preserves hard and soft tissues around implant-retained prostheses than conventional implant placement in maxillary esthetic regions. Further studies with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up are required to validate these findings.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
87
审稿时长
44 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Indian Society of Periodontology publishes original scientific articles to support practice , education and research in the dental specialty of periodontology and oral implantology. Journal of Indian Society of Periodontology (JISP), is the official publication of the Society and is managed and brought out by the Editor of the society. The journal is published Bimonthly with special issues being brought out for specific occasions. The ISP had a bulletin as its publication for a large number of years and was enhanced as a Journal a few years ago
期刊最新文献
Evaluation of the cortication ratio and visibility of mandibular canal and mandibular incisive canal in patients with mandibular cortical index type 1 on cone-beam computed tomography images. Fifty years gone by: Preparing for next 50. Glycemic control in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus affects periodontal health but not salivary status: An observational study. Indian Society of Periodotology Scientific Events. Artificial intelligence - The future of periodontics and implant dentistry?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1