Aobo Zhang1,2, Yuping Liu3, Xiaoxiao Liu1,2, XinJia Cai1,2, Lisha Sun4,5,6,7, Tiejun Li8,9. 1. Department of Oral Pathology, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology & National Center of Stomatology & National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases & National Engineering Laboratory for Digital and Material Technology of Stomatology & Beijing Key Laboratory of Digital Stomatology & Research Center of Engineering and Technology for Computerized Dentistry Ministry of Health & NMPA Key Laboratory for Dental Materials, Beijing, 100081, China. 2. Research Unit of Precision Pathologic Diagnosis in Tumors of the Oral and Maxillofacial Regions, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences (2019RU034), Beijing, 100081, China. 3. School of Stomatology, Shandong First Medical University & Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Taian, 271016, Shandong, China. 4. Research Unit of Precision Pathologic Diagnosis in Tumors of the Oral and Maxillofacial Regions, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences (2019RU034), Beijing, 100081, China. lisa_sun@bjmu.edu.cn. 5. Central Laboratory, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology, Beijing, 100081, China. lisa_sun@bjmu.edu.cn. 6. National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases & National Engineering Laboratory for Digital and Material Technology of Stomatology & Beijing Key Laboratory of Digital Stomatology, Beijing, 100081, China. lisa_sun@bjmu.edu.cn. 7. , No.22 Zhongguancun South Avenue, Haidian District, 100081, Beijing, People's Republic of China. lisa_sun@bjmu.edu.cn. 8. Department of Oral Pathology, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology & National Center of Stomatology & National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases & National Engineering Laboratory for Digital and Material Technology of Stomatology & Beijing Key Laboratory of Digital Stomatology & Research Center of Engineering and Technology for Computerized Dentistry Ministry of Health & NMPA Key Laboratory for Dental Materials, Beijing, 100081, China. litiejun22@vip.sina.com. 9. , No.22 Zhongguancun South Avenue, Haidian District, 100081, Beijing, People's Republic of China. litiejun22@vip.sina.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether the clinical outcome of socket shield technique (SST) is superior to that of conventional immediate implantation (CII). MATERIALS AND METHOD: Five electronic databases (PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science, CNKI, and Google Scholar) were searched to identify randomized controlled trials up to June 31, 2021. Five evaluation indexes were extracted, namely, buccal bone resorption at the horizontal and vertical levels (BBH and BBV), the soft tissue recession assessed by pink evaluation scores (PES), patient satisfaction (PS), ISQ, and the success rate of implantation (SRI), to compare the superiority between SST and CII operations. All data analyses were performed using Review Manager (version 5.4). RESULTS: Ten studies were included in this review. The sample included 388 implants, with 194 in the SST group and 194 in the CII group. Compared with the CII group, the SST group had a lower BBH and BBV (standardized mean difference (SMD), - 1.77; 95% CI, - 2.26 to - 1.28; P < 0.00001 and SMD, - 1.85; 95% CI, - 2.16 to 1.54; P < 0.00001), higher PES improvement (SMD, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.59 to 2.95; P < 0.00001), higher rate of PS (OR, 3.12; 95% CI, 1.08 to 9.04; P = 0.04), and slightly higher ISQ (SMD, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.28 to 1.15; P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with CII, SST could be a better option for esthetic area implantation, but evaluation of its long-term success is still needed. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: By comparing and analyzing the operations of immediate implant in esthetic zone, we could choose SST to effectively alleviate the absorption of bone tissue and improve the contouring of soft tissue after anterior teeth extraction, so as to achieve a more stable and superior clinical outcomes of implant in esthetic zone.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether the clinical outcome of socket shield technique (SST) is superior to that of conventional immediate implantation (CII). MATERIALS AND METHOD: Five electronic databases (PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science, CNKI, and Google Scholar) were searched to identify randomized controlled trials up to June 31, 2021. Five evaluation indexes were extracted, namely, buccal bone resorption at the horizontal and vertical levels (BBH and BBV), the soft tissue recession assessed by pink evaluation scores (PES), patient satisfaction (PS), ISQ, and the success rate of implantation (SRI), to compare the superiority between SST and CII operations. All data analyses were performed using Review Manager (version 5.4). RESULTS: Ten studies were included in this review. The sample included 388 implants, with 194 in the SST group and 194 in the CII group. Compared with the CII group, the SST group had a lower BBH and BBV (standardized mean difference (SMD), - 1.77; 95% CI, - 2.26 to - 1.28; P < 0.00001 and SMD, - 1.85; 95% CI, - 2.16 to 1.54; P < 0.00001), higher PES improvement (SMD, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.59 to 2.95; P < 0.00001), higher rate of PS (OR, 3.12; 95% CI, 1.08 to 9.04; P = 0.04), and slightly higher ISQ (SMD, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.28 to 1.15; P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with CII, SST could be a better option for esthetic area implantation, but evaluation of its long-term success is still needed. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: By comparing and analyzing the operations of immediate implant in esthetic zone, we could choose SST to effectively alleviate the absorption of bone tissue and improve the contouring of soft tissue after anterior teeth extraction, so as to achieve a more stable and superior clinical outcomes of implant in esthetic zone.
Authors: Marco Esposito; Maria Gabriella Grusovin; Ilias P Polyzos; Pietro Felice; Helen V Worthington Journal: Eur J Oral Implantol Date: 2010 Impact factor: 3.123