Comparative evaluation of conventional and socket-shield techniques on maxillary esthetics following immediate implant placement in fresh extraction sockets: A randomized controlled trial
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 conventio...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications
2024-07-01
|
| Series: | Journal of Indian Society of Periodontology |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://journals.lww.com/10.4103/jisp.jisp_13_24 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | 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. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 0972-124X 0975-1580 |