IADR Abstract Archives
Effectiveness of Socket Shield Technique on Immediate Implants: a Meta-Analysis Study of Randomized Clinical Trials
Objectives: This study aimed to summarize the available evidence concerning the effectiveness of socket shield technique (SST) in immediate implant placement for the following outcomes: bone loss, implant stability, probing depth, esthetics, complications, and survival rate.
Methods: Seven electronic databases up to April 2023 were searched to identify randomized clinical trials that assessed the effect of immediate implant placed with SST (test group) versus other implant placement protocols without SST. The risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane’s risk of bias tool (RoB 2.0). Random effects meta-analysis was conducted for the follwoing outcomes: bone loss, implant stability, and probing depth. The GRADE approach was ysed to assess the certainty of evidence.
Results: Twelve RCTs, involving 414 immediate implants, placed in 398 patients, were included. Meta-analyses revealed that the immediate implants placed with SST had a statistically significant decrease in horizontal (MD = −0.28, 95% CI [−0.37, −0.19], p < 0.0001), vertical (MD = −0.85, 95% CI [−1.12, −0.58], p < 0.0001), and crestal bone loss (MD = −0.35, 95% CI [−0.56, −0.13], p = 0.002), as well as probing depth (MD = −0.64, 95% CI [−0.99, −0.29], p = 0.0003). Additionally, SST had a significant increase in implant stability (MD = 3.46, 95 % CI [1.22, 5.69], p = 0.002) and pink esthetic score (MD = 1.60, 95% CI [0.90, 2.30], p < 0.0001). Only two studies reported shield exposure incidences in the SST group; however, all studies revealed no implant failure and a 100% survival rate.
Conclusions: SST seems to be more effective in minimizing bone resorption and improving implant stability and esthetic outcomes than conventional immediate implant placement. However, due to the lack of a standardized surgical approach; thus, further high-quality RCTs are required to support this conclusion.
Methods: Seven electronic databases up to April 2023 were searched to identify randomized clinical trials that assessed the effect of immediate implant placed with SST (test group) versus other implant placement protocols without SST. The risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane’s risk of bias tool (RoB 2.0). Random effects meta-analysis was conducted for the follwoing outcomes: bone loss, implant stability, and probing depth. The GRADE approach was ysed to assess the certainty of evidence.
Results: Twelve RCTs, involving 414 immediate implants, placed in 398 patients, were included. Meta-analyses revealed that the immediate implants placed with SST had a statistically significant decrease in horizontal (MD = −0.28, 95% CI [−0.37, −0.19], p < 0.0001), vertical (MD = −0.85, 95% CI [−1.12, −0.58], p < 0.0001), and crestal bone loss (MD = −0.35, 95% CI [−0.56, −0.13], p = 0.002), as well as probing depth (MD = −0.64, 95% CI [−0.99, −0.29], p = 0.0003). Additionally, SST had a significant increase in implant stability (MD = 3.46, 95 % CI [1.22, 5.69], p = 0.002) and pink esthetic score (MD = 1.60, 95% CI [0.90, 2.30], p < 0.0001). Only two studies reported shield exposure incidences in the SST group; however, all studies revealed no implant failure and a 100% survival rate.
Conclusions: SST seems to be more effective in minimizing bone resorption and improving implant stability and esthetic outcomes than conventional immediate implant placement. However, due to the lack of a standardized surgical approach; thus, further high-quality RCTs are required to support this conclusion.