From: The socket-shield technique: a critical literature review
n | Author | Title | Year | Study type | N patients | n implants | Region | Augmentation | Observation period | po radiography supplied | Follow-up radiography supplied | Osseointegration rate | Complications | n survival implants | Cosmetic outcome | Results/conclusion |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
19 | Bramanti, et al. [4] | Postextraction dental implant in the aesthetic zone, socket shield technique versus conventional protocol | 2018 | Randomised controlled trial | 40 | 40 | 13–23 or 33–43 | allograft (copiOs) | 36 | 100% | Nil | 100% | PAS significantly higher in test group | Significantly higher PAS and lower amount of crestal bone change in test group | ||
10 | Dary et al. [5] | The socket shield technique using bone trephine: a case report | 2015 | Case report | 1 | Pre molar (maxilla) | 0 | Not reported | Authors conclude that socket-shield represents a promising technique to preserve buccal bone | |||||||
23 | Arabbi et al. [6] | Socket shield: a case report | 2019 | Case report | 1 | 2 | Teeth 21 and 11 | No | Nil | No | No | 100% | Not recorded | n/a | Not recorded | Authors conclude that the socket-shield technique has not enough clinical data to recommend for daily practice |
11 | Baumer et al. [7] | The socket-shield technique: First histological, clinical and volumetrical observation after separation of the buccal tooth segment- a pilot study | 2013 | Case report | 1 post IV bisphosphonate use | 2 | Canine (maxilla) -Socket shield central incisor -No socket shield | No | Nil | No | No | Not reported | 2 | Socket-shield technique is technique sensitive and needs for more scientific data Socket-shield technique can still not be generally recommended for clinicians in daily practice. Yet the observed results are promising | ||
12 | Baumer et al. [8] | Socket shield technique for immediate implant placement—clinical, radiographic and volumetric data after 5 years | 2017 | Retrospective clinical study | 10 (5 male, 5 female) | Unknown | Unknown | 51 to 63 months (mean 51 months) | 100% | Not reported | Volumetric changes measured by means of stl comparison Mean loss of buccal tissue − /0.37 ± 0.18 mm avr mid facial recession − .33 ± .23 mm Mean loss of marginal bone level 0.33 mm ± 0.43 mm (mesial) 0.17 ± 0.36 mm at distal Pink aesthetic score mean 12 (11–14) | Authors conclude, scientific evidence lacking, socket shield suggests advantages in immediate implant placement, low morbidity and favourable cost-benefit ratio additionally might provide more predictable aesthetic outcome in complex cases Further research required for long-term stability | ||||
5 | Cherel and Etienne [9] | The socket-shield technique and immediate implant placement | 2013 | Case report | 1 | 2 | Central incisors | Bio-Oss | 6 months post restoration | No | 1 month post restoration 6 months post restoration | Not reported | 2 | PA at follow-up shows no interpret bone change | ||
4 | Dayakar et al. [10] | Immediate implant combined with modified socket-shield technique: a case letter | 2018 | Case report | 1 | 1 | Unknown | 3 months | Yes | pa 2 months | Not reported | 1 | Authors conclude that SS-technique is successful in preserving of tissue | |||
24 | Dayakar et al. [10] | The socket-shield technique and immediate implant placement | 2018 | Case report | 1 | 1 | Tooth 22 | No | Nil | No | No | 100% | Nil | n/a | Not recorded | Authors conclude that socket-shield technique shows promising result |
25 | Glocker et al. [11] | Ridge preservation with modified “socket-shield” technique: a methodological case series | 2014 | Case report | 3 | 3 | 13 (2) 22 (1) | Yes (Bio-Oss) (2) fgg (1) | Nil | Yes | No | 100% | Not reported | n/a | Not recorded | Authors conclude that the socket-shield technique is a cost-effective technique which avoids resorption of bundle bone |
13 | Gluckman et al. [12] | 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 | 2018 | Retrospective study | Unknown | 128 | Numerous | Unknown | 1–4 years | na | na | 123/128 (96.1%) | 5 implant failures, reason unknown 3 infected socket shields + mobile removal of socket shield, retention of implant 2 socket shields mobile, removal of socket shield and implant 12 internal socket shield exposures 4 external (oral cavity) exposures of socket shields 2/4 external exposures required ctg 1 socket shield migration | 123 | Author noted that no dark hues or recession exposing the abutment to fixture interface were noted | Similar osseointegration rate compared to traditional treatment concept, with the added benefit of a less invasive approach. Most common complication—internal exposure of socket shield—conclusion that the ss was not reduced enough to all for adequate space, furthermore authors now recommend the ss reduction to bone level |
18 | Gluckman et al. [13] | The pontic-shield: partial extraction therapy for ridge preservation and pointed site development. | 2016 | Case report | 10 | 14 | Anterior maxilla | ctg, xenograft, fgc | 12–18 months | 1 socket shield exposure | Subjective observation noticed tissue volume to be preserved 1 patient had complications—all 3 socket shields exposed due to failure of soft tissue closure Authors note that limited scientific evidence for this technique nomenclature is noted as being inconsistent Authors note that additional research and scrutiny is needed to validate this technique for use in daily clinical practice | |||||
21 | Guo et al. [14] | Tissue preservation through socket-shield technique and platelet-rich fibrin in immediate implant placement | 2018 | Case study | 1 | 1 | Tooth 21 | Yes—PRF | 18 months | Yes | Yes | 100% | None | 1 | Stable soft tissue reported | The socket-shield was effective in preserving the peri-implant tissue and contour |
20 | Han et al. [15] | The modified socket shield technique | 2018 | Clinical trial | 30 | 40 | Premolar, canine and incisors in mandible and maxilla | No | 1 year po | n/a | n/a | 100% | None | 40 | Not supplied | Authors conclude that the socket shield technique is safe and efficient in preserving bone |
3 | Huang et al. [16] | The root membrane technique: human histologic evidence after 5 years of function | 2017 | Case report | 1 | 1 | Bio-Oss | 9 months | cbct | Not reported | 1 | Score 13 | ||||
14 | Hurzeler et al. [1] | The socket-shield technique: a proof-of-principle report | 2010 | Proof of concept/case report | 1 | 1 | Central incisor maxilla | Emdogain | 0 | No | No | Not reported | Author concludes that this case report supports socket shields as a viable implant placement concept. This technique potentially could be used to reduce the risk of resorption of the bundle bone post extraction. | |||
6 | Kan et al. [17] | Proximal socket shield for interplant papilla preservation in the aesthetic zone | 2014 | Case report | 1 | 1 | Central incisor | Bio-Oss + puros (allograft) CTG | 1 year post restoration | Yes | pa 1 year | Not reported | 1 | Authors report satisfactory aesthetic result, but that the socket shield is a technique sensitive procedure with limited long-term evidence | ||
2 | Mitsias et al. [18] | Clinical benefits of immediate implant socket shield technique | 2017 | Case report | 1 | 1 | None | 5 years | Not reported | 1 | Buccal bone plate was maintained, no evidence or resorption apical and medial part between socket shield and implant was filled with mature bone coronal part that was connective tissue | |||||
16 | Mitsias et al. [19] | A step-by-step description of PDL-mediated ridge preservation for immediate implant rehabilitation in the esthetic region | 2015 | Case report | 1 | 1 | Central incisor maxilla | Not stated | 3 years | Yes | Yes | None | 1 | Novel technique similar to the socket shield technique (difference is the direct implant to root fragment contact) Authors report that this technique might prevent psychological implications of tooth extraction ( as part of root remains); however, a careful case selection is recommended | ||
17 | Szmukler-Moncler et al. [20] | Unconventional implant placement part III: implant placement encroaching residual roots—a report of 6 cases | 2014 | Case report | 6 | 6 | Molars mandible, premolars maxilla and mandible, central incisor maxilla | Not stated | 3–9 years | Yes | Yes | 6/6 | 1 case possible resorption of tooth fragment 1 implant with crestal bone loss to second/third thread 9 years post restoration | 5–1 patient drop out | Author reports that the presence or absence of root-filling material seemed to have no effect on implant on outcome | |
7 | Nevins et al. [21] | Late dental implant failure associated with retained root fragments: case report with histologic and SEM analysis | 2018 | Case report | 2 | 2 | 1st molars | Case 1: bio-Oss Case 2: DFDBA | Case 1: 8 + years Case 2: 4 years | Case 1: yes Case 2: yes | Yes | Case 1: advanced peri-implantitis, root fragment attached to messiah aspect evident Case 2: loss of integration | 0 | Case 1: Human histology (LM) revealed implant in bone contact consistent with osseointgration, graft biomaterial in close proximity to fixture, direct implant contact to cementum of the retained root surface, no sign of periodontal ligament Case 2: LM shows bone in between implant surface and root fragment late implant failure might contribute to unintentionally remaining root fragments | ||
1 | Pour et al. [22] | 2017 | Case report | 1 | 1 | None | 3 months | Not reported | 1 | Authors conclude that no added cost for patient, single surgical procedure, reduced morbidity, possibility of tx in patient with previous end pathology tutors describe as favourable technique for dental practice | ||||||
8 | Schwimer et al. [2] | Human histologic evidence of new bone formation and osseointegration between root dentin (unplanned socket-shield) and dental implant: case report | 2018 | Case report | 1 | 1 | Pre molar | Unknown | 2 years | No | No | Loss of integration peri-implantitis | 0 | Authors reported failed osseointegration 2 years post restoration, human histology revealed root fragment attached to implant, bone formation on implant surface evident absence of fibrovascular tissue. | ||
15 | Siormpas et al. [23] | Immediate implant placement in the esthetic zone utilizing the “root-membrane” technique: clinical results up to 5 years postloading | 2014 | Retrospective case series | 46 (20 male 26 female) | 46 | Anterior maxilla | Nil | 24 –60 months (mean 40 months( | na | na | 100% | 1 case resorption of root fragment | 46 | Pre-, post-operative cbct in 4 cases with maintained buccal bone volume in 3/4 cases Author concluded that similar complication rate to traditional placement protocol but minimising of facial bone volume changes Author concludes bone volume has remained stable; however, volumetric investigation using cbct data was only carried out in 4/46 cases. | |
22 | Siormpas et al. [24] | The root membrane technique: a retrospective clinical study with up to 10 years of follow-up | 2018 | Retrospective clinical study | 182 | 250 | Anterior | No | Mean 49 months | n/a | n/a | Not supplied | Not reported | 5 (87.9%) | Not recorded | Author reports similar success rate as in conventional immediate implants |
9 | Wadhwani et al. [25] | Socket shield technique: a new concept of ridge preservation | 2015 | Case report | 1 | 1 | Central incisor | Yes, material unspecified | 0 | Yes | No | Unknown | Unknown | Unknown | Authors conclude that this case report suggest alveolar bone preservation |