Sheng-Jie Yan1, Cong Zhou1, Jin Liu2, Xiang-Na Xu1, Yun Yang1, Xin Chen1, Jing Lan1. 1. Shandong Provincial Key Labo-ratory of Oral Tissue Regeneration, Jinan 250012, China;Dept. of Implantology, School & Hospital of Stomatology, Shan-dong University, Jinan 250012, China. 2. Shandong Provincial Key Labo-ratory of Oral Tissue Regeneration, Jinan 250012, China;Dept of Prosthodontics, School & Hospital of Stomatology, Shandong University, Jinan 250012, China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the clinical effect of the socket-shield technique in the maxillary anterior region at one year after implant placement. METHODS: Ten patients with maxillary anterior teeth that cannot be reserved were enrolled. Implants were installed following the socket-shield technique and restored six months after the surgery. The thickness of the labial maxillary bone of the implant was compared before and one year after the surgery. At one year follow-up, the reten-tion rate of the implants, Jemt classification, and pink and white aesthetic scores were evaluated. Postoperative complications and patient satisfaction were also analyzed. RESULTS: One year after installation, the retention rate of the implant was 100%. The thickness of the maxillary bone at the neck, central, and root section of the implant reduced to (0.27±0.21), (0.19±0.20), and (0.28±0.29) mm, respectively, compared with the values immediately after the operation. The thickness of the labial maxillary bone at the three measurement points immediately after and one year after the operation was statistically significant (P<0.05). No significant difference (P>0.05) of the difference thickness between immediate and one year after operation at the three measurement points. The pink esthetic scores of the implant prosthesis was 9.10±0.54, and the white esthetic scores was 9.00±0.63. No complications were observed, and the patients had a high degree of satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: The socket-shield technique could provide acceptable treatment results but cannot completely avoid the reconstruction of the labial maxillary bone of the implants. The technique exhibits favo-rable short-term aesthetic result, but its long-term clinical effect and aesthetic problems need to be further studied.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the clinical effect of the socket-shield technique in the maxillary anterior region at one year after implant placement. METHODS: Ten patients with maxillary anterior teeth that cannot be reserved were enrolled. Implants were installed following the socket-shield technique and restored six months after the surgery. The thickness of the labial maxillary bone of the implant was compared before and one year after the surgery. At one year follow-up, the reten-tion rate of the implants, Jemt classification, and pink and white aesthetic scores were evaluated. Postoperative complications and patient satisfaction were also analyzed. RESULTS: One year after installation, the retention rate of the implant was 100%. The thickness of the maxillary bone at the neck, central, and root section of the implant reduced to (0.27±0.21), (0.19±0.20), and (0.28±0.29) mm, respectively, compared with the values immediately after the operation. The thickness of the labial maxillary bone at the three measurement points immediately after and one year after the operation was statistically significant (P<0.05). No significant difference (P>0.05) of the difference thickness between immediate and one year after operation at the three measurement points. The pink esthetic scores of the implant prosthesis was 9.10±0.54, and the white esthetic scores was 9.00±0.63. No complications were observed, and the patients had a high degree of satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: The socket-shield technique could provide acceptable treatment results but cannot completely avoid the reconstruction of the labial maxillary bone of the implants. The technique exhibits favo-rable short-term aesthetic result, but its long-term clinical effect and aesthetic problems need to be further studied.
Entities:
Keywords:
aesthetic area implant; immediate implant; socket-shield technqiue
Authors: Phillip Roe; Joseph Y K Kan; Kitichai Rungcharassaeng; Joseph M Caruso; Grenith Zimmerman; Juan Mesquida Journal: Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants Date: 2012 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Miltiadis E Mitsias; Konstantinos D Siormpas; Eleni Kontsiotou-Siormpa; Hari Prasad; David Garber; Georgios A Kotsakis Journal: Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent Date: 2015 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 1.840
Authors: Urs C Belser; Linda Grütter; Francesca Vailati; Michael M Bornstein; Hans-Peter Weber; Daniel Buser Journal: J Periodontol Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 6.993
Authors: Konstantinos D Siormpas; Miltiadis E Mitsias; Eleni Kontsiotou-Siormpa; David Garber; Georgios A Kotsakis Journal: Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants Date: 2014-09-26 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Charles Schwimer; Gregory A Pette; Howard Gluckman; Maurice Salama; Jonathan Du Toit Journal: Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants Date: 2018 Jan/Feb Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Ramón Gómez-Meda; María Rizo-Gorrita; María-Angeles Serrera-Figallo; Jonathan Esquivel; Cristina Herraez-Galindo; Daniel Torres-Lagares Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-02-27 Impact factor: 3.390