Clinical outcomes of socket-shield technique and conventional immediate implantation: a Meta analysis
KANG Shuai1,2, CAO Junkai1, HU Nan1, GU Bin1, WANG Yibo1, JIANG Yi1
1. Department of Stomatology, the First Medical Center of PLA General Hospital, Beijing 100853,China; 2. Department of Stomatology, No.989 Hospital of PLA,Luoyang 471031,China
Abstract：Objective To assess the clinical outcomes of the socket-shield technique and conventional immediate implantation. Methods Such electronic databases as Cochrane library, Science Direct, Pubmed, Wanfang, CJFD, VIP, CQVIP and CBM were searched. Meta-analysis was performed by using Revman 5.4.1. Results Seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 238 implants were included. The socket-shield technique had the same success rate(100%)and initial stability[MD=0.58(－0.24,1.41),P=0.16>0.05] as the conventional immediate implantation (CII). The amount of vertical[MD=－0.49(－0.54,－0.45),P<0.05] and horizontal[MD=－0.26(－0.39,－0.12),P<0.05] bone resorption at 6 months after operation was smaller than that of CII, so was the amount of horizontal bone resorption at 12 months MD=－0.83[－0.91,－0.75] (P<0.05). A better aesthetic effect around the implant was achieved at 12 months after operation MD=1.30[0.93,1.66] (P<0.05). Conclusions The socket-shield technique can reduce the absorption of the labio-buccal bone plate and improve the aesthetic effect.
康帅, 曹均凯, 胡楠, 顾斌, 王一博, 蒋一. 牙科盾构技术与传统即刻种植术临床效果对比的Meta分析[J]. 武警医学, 2021, 32(6): 518-522.
KANG Shuai, CAO Junkai, HU Nan, GU Bin, WANG Yibo, JIANG Yi. Clinical outcomes of socket-shield technique and conventional immediate implantation: a Meta analysis. Med. J. Chin. Peop. Armed Poli. Forc., 2021, 32(6): 518-522.
Schulte W, Kleineikenscheidt H, Schareyka R, et al. Concept and testing of the Tübingen immediate implant[J]. Dtsch Zahnarztl Z, 1978, 33(5): 319-325.
[2]
Scropp L. Clinical and radiographic performance of delayed-immediate single-tooth implant placement associated with peri-implant bone defects. A 2-year prospective, controlled, randomized follow-up report[J]. J Clin Periodontol, 2005, 32(4): 480-487.
[3]
Chen S T, Darby I B, Reynolds E C. A prospective clinical study ofnon-submerged immediate implants: clinical outcomes and esthetic results[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2007, 18(5): 552-562.
[4]
Araujo M G, Lindhe J. Dimensional ridge alterations following tooth extraction. An experimental study in the dog[J]. J Clin Periodontol,2005,32(2):212-218.
Fickl S, Zuhr O, Wachtel H, et al. Dimensional changes of the alveolar ridge contour after different socket preservation techniques[J]. J Clin Periodontol, 2008, 35(10): 906-913.
[7]
Tonetti M S, Cortellini P, Graziani F, et al. Immediate versus delayedimplant placement after anterior single tooth extraction: the timing randomized controlled clinical trial [J]. J Clin Periodontol, 2017, 44(2): 215-224.
[8]
Abd-Elrahman A, Shaheen M, Askar N, et al. Socket shield technique vs conventional immediate implant placement with immediate temporization. Randomized clinical trial [J]. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res,2020,22(3):1-10.
[9]
Esposito M, Grusovin M G, Polyzos I P, et al. Timing of implant placement after tooth extraction: immediate, immediate-delayed or delayed implants? A Cochrane systematic review[J]. Eur J Oral Implantol, 2010, 3(3): 189-205.
[10]
Baumer D, Zuhr O, Rebele S, et al. The socket-shield technique: first histological, clinical, and volumetrical observations after separation of the buccal tooth segment-a pilot study [J]. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res, 2015, 17(1): 71-82.
[11]
Siormpas K D, Mitsias M E, Kontsiotou-Siormpa E, et al. Immediate implant placement in the esthetic zone utilizing the "root-membrane" technique: clinical results up to 5 years post loading[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 2014, 29(6): 1397-1405.
Hurzeler M B, Zuhr O, Schupbach P, et al. The socket-shield technique: a proof-of-principle report[J]. J Clin Periodontol, 2010, 37(9): 855-862.
[14]
Bumer D, Zuhr O, Rebele S, et al. The socket-shield technique: first histological, clinical, and volumetrical observations after separation of the buccal tooth segment-A pilot study[J]. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res,2013,17(1):71-82.
[15]
Bramanti E, Norcia A, Cicciù M, et al. Postextraction dental implant in the aesthetic zone, socket shield technique versus conventional protocol[J]. J Craniofac Surg, 2018, 29(4): 1037-1041.
Furhauser R, Florescu D, Benesch T, et al. Evaluation of soft tissue around single-tooth implant crowns: the pink esthetic score[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2005, 16(6): 639-644.
[18]
Sun C, Zhao J, Liu Z, et al. Comparing conventional flap-less immediate implantation and socket:hield Technique for esthetic and clinical outcomes: A randomized clinical study [J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2019, 31(2):181-192.
[19]
Tiwari S, Bedi R S, Wadhwani P, et al. Comparison of immediate implant placement following extraction with and without socket-shield technique in esthetic region[J]. J Maxil Oral Surg, 2019, 19(4): 552-560.
Fürhauser R, Mailath-Pokorny G, Haas R, et al. Immediate restoration of immediate implants in the esthetic zone of the maxilla via the copy-abutment technique: 5-year follow-up of pink esthetic scores [J]. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res, 2017, 19(4): 28-37.
[23]
Yan Q, Xiao L Q, Su M Y, et al. Soft and hard tissue changes following immediate placement or immediate restoration of single-tooth implants in the esthetic zone: a systematic review and meta-analysis [J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 2016, 31(3): 1327-1340.
[24]
Araujo M G, Silva C O, Misawa M, et al. Alveolar socket healing: what can we learn?[J]. Periodontol, 2015, 68(5): 122-134.
[25]
Gluckman H, Salama M, Du Toit J. A retrospective evaluation of 128 socket-shield cases in the esthetic zone and posterior sites: partial extraction therapy with up to 4 years follow-up [J]. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res, 2017, 20(2): 122-129.
2021, Vol. 32 
