Comparison between Immediate Implant Placement in the Aesthetic Zone with and without Socket Shield Technique. | ||
| Egyptian Dental Journal | ||
| Article 12, Volume 68, Issue 1 - Serial Number 2, January 2022, Pages 235-347 PDF (1.68 M) | ||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||
| DOI: 10.21608/edj.2021.99597.1819 | ||
| Authors | ||
| Sally Abdelsameaa* 1; Heba Elsheikh1; May Bilal2; Fakhreldin Abdel-Rahman1 | ||
| 1Lecturer of Oral Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt. | ||
| 2Assistant Professor of Oral Medicine and Periodontology, Department of Oral Medicine, Periodontology, Diagnosis and Oral Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt. | ||
| Abstract | ||
| Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of the socket shield technique (SST) versus the conventional technique for immediate implant placement. Material and Methods: Twenty patients who reported with a single non-restorable maxillary tooth in the esthetic zone were included in this study and randomly assigned to one of the two groups: Group A: (study group) comprising SST with immediate implant placement and Group B: (control group) comprising conventional technique for immediate implant placement. All patients were evaluated clinically and radiographically at implant placement time, after 3 months, and 6 months regarding implant stability, peri-implant pocket depth (PPD), modified sulcus bleeding index (mSBI), and marginal bone loss (MBL). All clinical and radiographic data were subjected to statistical analysis. Results: The mean vertical bone loss was 0.399±0.093 and 0.953±0.354 mm for the study and control groups, respectively. The mean horizontal bone loss was 0.322±0.066 and 0.528±0.065 mm for the study and control groups, respectively. There was significant difference between both groups regarding vertical and horizontal bone loss. The ISQ for the study group significantly increased from 61.20±5.01 to 71.30±1.70, while in the control group it significantly increased from 58.90±2.85 to 69.20±5.85 with no significant difference between the two groups. There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding mSBI with significant difference regarding PPD. Conclusion: the socket shield technique is alternative minimally invasive procedure to preserve the buccal bone and improve treatment outcomes with immediate implant placement. | ||
| Keywords | ||
| Aesthetic zone; bone loss; immediate dental implant; socket shield technique | ||
|
Statistics Article View: 426 PDF Download: 391 |
||
