EVALUATION OF THE SOCKET SHIELD TECHNIQUE FOR IMMEDIATE IMPLANTATION | ||
| Alexandria Dental Journal | ||
| Article 5, Volume 42, Issue 2, December 2017, Pages 155-161 PDF (1.09 M) | ||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||
| DOI: 10.21608/adjalexu.2017.57919 | ||
| Authors | ||
| Dalia A. Barakat* 1; Ragab S. Hassan2; Riham M. Eldibany2 | ||
| 1Bachelor of Dentistry, BDS, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt | ||
| 2Professor of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, BDS, MSc, PhD, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt. | ||
| Abstract | ||
| INTRODUCTION: Numerous publications have verified that tooth extraction is followed by dimensional changes of the alveolar ridge contour. The resorption of the alveolar ridge is more pronounced on the buccal than on the lingual aspect of the extraction socket. In particular, in the aesthetic zone, the successive soft and hard tissue deficiencies can interfere with optimal implant positioning and hamper the overall aesthetic outcome of implant-supported prostheses. OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to evaluate the socket shield technique clinically and radiographically as a new modality for immediate implantation in comparison to the conventional technique. MATERIALS AND METHODS: twenty patients were included in this study (n=20). They were divided in two groups; group I: Ten maxillary single rooted teeth were extracted followed by immediate implant placement using the socket shield technique. Group II: Ten maxillary single rooted teeth were extracted followed by immediate implant placement using the conventional technique. All implants were evaluated clinically and radiographically to evaluate bone loss on intervals of 1, 4 and 7 months. RESULTS: the mean horizontal and vertical bone loss value in socket shield technique group was 0.09±0.03mm & 0.43±0.23mm contrary to the conventional implantation after 7 months follow up, which was 0.33±0.14mm & 1.56±0.77mm which was statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: The socket shield technique was beneficial in preserving the buccal bone plate | ||
| Keywords | ||
| ridge preservation; Immediate implant; socket shield | ||
| References | ||
|
1. Limor AA, George AZ. Clinical effectiveness of implant supported single tooth replacement. The Toronto study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1996; 11:311-21.
2. Henry P J. Tooth loss and implant replacement. Aust Dent J. 2000; 45:150-72.
3. Botticelli D, Persson LG, Lindhe J, Berglundh T. Bone tissue formation adjacent to implant placed in fresh extraction sockets: an experimental study in dogs. Clin Oral Implants. 2006; 17:351-8.
4. Fickl S, Zuhr O, Wachtel H, Bolz W, Huerzeler MB. Hard tissue alterations after socket preservation: an exprimental study in the beagle dog. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008;19: 1111-8.
5. Carmagnola D, Adriaens P, Berglundh T. Healing of human extraction sockets filled with Bio-Oss. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2003; 14:137-43.
6. Nevins M, Camelo M, De Paoli S, Friedland B, Schenk RK, Parma-Benfenati S, et al. A study of the fate of the buccal wall of extraction sockets of teeth with prominent roots. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2006; 26:19-29.
7. Araújo M, Linder E, Wennström J, Lindhe J. The influence of Bio-Oss collagen on healing of an extraction socket: an experimental study in the dog. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2008; 28:123-35.
8. Araújo M, Linder E, Lindhe J. Effect of a xenograft on early bone formation in extraction sockets: an experimental study in dog. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009;20:1-6.
9. Chen C L, Pan Y H. Socket shield technique for ridge preservation: A case report. J Prosthondontics Implantology. 2013; 2:16-21.
10. Lekovic V, Camargo PM, Klokkevold PR, Weinlaender M, Kenney EB, Dimitrijevic B, et al. Preservation of alveolar bone in extraction sockets using bioabsorbable mebranes. J Periodontol. 1998;69:1044-9.
11. Lekovic V, Kenney E, Weinlaender M, Han T, Klokkevold P, Nedic M, et al. A bone regenerative approach to alveolar ridge maintenance following tooth extractions. Report of 10 cases. J Periodontol.1997;68:563-70.
12. Araújo MG, Lindhe J. Dimensional ridge alterations following tooth extraction: An experimental study in the dog. J Periodontol. 2005; 32:212-8.
13. Hürzeler MB, Zuhr O, Schupbach P, Rebele SF, Emmanouilidis N, Fickl S. The socket shield technique: a proof-of-principle report. J Clin Periodontal. 2010; 37: 855-62.
14. Filippi A, Pohl Y, von Arx T. Decoronation of an ankylosed tooth for preservation of alveolar bone prior to implant placement. Dent Traumatol 2001; 17:93-5.
15. Andersson L, Emami-Kristiansen Z, Högström J. Single tooth implant treatment of tooth loss after trauma: A retrospective clinical and interview study. Dent Traumatol 2003; 19:126-31.
16. Malmgren, B., Cvek, M., Lundberg, M. & Frykholm, A. Surgical treatment of ankylosed and infrapositioned reimpla nted incisors in adolescents. Scand J Dent Res.1984; 92:391–9.
17. Malmgren, O., Malmgren, B. & Goldson, L. Orthodontic Management of the Traumatized Dentition. 3rd ed. Munksgaard, Copenhagen;1994: pp. 587–633.
18. Salama M, Ishikawa T, Salama H, Funato A, Garber D. Advantages of the root submergence technique for pontic site development in esthetic implant therapy. Int J Periodontics Restor Dent. 2007; 27:521-7.
19. Mombelli A, Muhle T, Bragger U, Lang NP, Burgin WB. Comparison of periodontal and peri-implant probing by depth-force pattern analysis Clin Oral Implants Res. 1997; 8:448-54.
20. Muhlemann HR, Son S. Gingival sulcus bleeding--a leading symptom in initial gingivitis. Helv Odontol Acta. 1971; 15:107-13.
21.Irinakis T. Rational for socket preservation after extraction of single rooted tooth when planning for future implant placement. J Can Dent Assoc. 2006; 72:917-22.
22. Lang NP, Berglundh T, Heitz-Mayfield LJ, Pjetursson BE, Salvi GE, Sanz M. Consensus statements and recommended clinical procedures regarding implant survival and complications. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004;19:150-4
23. Degidi M, Daprile G, Piattelli A. Determination of primary stability: A comparison of the surgeon’s perception and objective measurements. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2010; 25:558-61.
24.Bäumer D, Zuhr O, Rebele S, Schneider D, Schupbach P, Hürzeler M. The socket-shield technique: first histological, clinical, and volumetrical observations after separation of the buccal tooth segment - a pilot study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2015; 17:71-82.
25.Bäumer D, Zuhr O, Rebele S, Hürzeler M. Socket Shield Technique for immediate implant placement – clinical, radiographic and volumetric data after 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017;0:1-9.
26. Abadzhiev M, Nenkov P, Velcheva P. Conventional immediate implant placement and immediate placement with socket-shield technique -Which is better. Int J Clin Med. 2014; 1:176-80.
27. Lindhe J. Clinical periodontology and implant dentistry. J Clin Periodontol 2008; 35: 992-1000.
28.Baumer D, Zuhr O, Rebele S, Schneider D, Schupbach P, Hurzeler M. _e Socket-Shield Technique: First Histological, Clinical, and Volumetrical Observations after Separation of the Buccal Tooth Segment- A Pilot Study. Wiley Periodicals, Inc.2013;0:1-12
29. Malmgren B. Decoronation: how, why, and when? J Calif Dent Assoc. 2000;28:846-54.
30. Malmgren B, Malmgren O. Rate of infraposition of reimplanted ankylosed incisors related to age and growth in children and adolescents. Dent Traumatol. 2002; 18:28-36.
31.Cohenca N, Stabholz A. Decoronation - a conservative method to treat ankylosed teeth for preservation of alveolar ridge prior to permanent prosthetic reconstruction: literature review and case presentation. Dent Traumatol. 2007; 23:87- 94.
32. Sapir S, Shapira J. Decoronation for the management of an ankylosed young permanent tooth. Dent Traumatol. 2008;24131-5.
| ||
|
Statistics Article View: 1,003 PDF Download: 1,886 |
||
