Socket seal surgery techniques in the esthetic zone: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized clinical trials

López-Pacheco, Andrea; Soto-Peñaloza, David; Gómez, Mayra; Peñarrocha-Oltra, David; Alarcón, Marco Antonio

doi:10.1186/s40729-021-00294-2

International Journal of Implant Dentistry

Table 2 Characteristics of the included studies

From: Socket seal surgery techniques in the esthetic zone: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized clinical trials

Author	Year	Country	A priori sample size estimation	Sample Size (sites)	Socket seal surgery approach		Type of bone graft material	Socket integrity	Method of dimensions measurement	Follow-up	Outcome measurements						Setting	Funding sources
					Intervention	Comparison					Radiographic				Clinical		Setting	Funding sources
					Intervention	Comparison					Width	p	Height	p	Buccal gingival thickness	p
Fotek et al. [34]	2009	USA	No	18 (18)	T: acellular dermal matrix	C: PTFE membrane	MBA	NR	Clinical	4 m	NR		NR	T⁻⁵, − 0.06 ± 0.24 mm C⁻⁵, − 0.17 ± 0.24 mm		0.28	University	BioHorizons and Osteogenics Biomedical
Jung et al. [35]	2013	Switzerland	Yes	20 (20)	T: collagen matrix	C: Free gingival graft	DBBM-C	At least 50% of the buccal bone wall	CBCT	6 m	T⁻¹, − 1.2 ± 0.8 mm C^-1, − 1.4 ± 1.0 mm	0.9	T, 0.0 ± 1.2.mm C, + 1.2 ± 2.9 mm	0.44	NR		University	University of Zurich and Geistlich Pharma AG
											T⁻³, − 0.6 ± 0.6 mm C⁻³, − 0.6 ± 0.5 mm	0.77
											T⁻⁵, − 0.1 ± 0.2 mm C⁻⁵: − 0.6 ± 0.9 mm	0.09
Karaca et al. [36]	2015	Turkey	No	10 (20)	T: free gingival graft	C: spontaneous healing	NONE	NR	CBCT	3 m	T⁰, − 0.99 ± 0.8 mm C⁰, − 1.22 ± 1.0 mm	0.24^a	T, + 0.6 ± 1.2.mm C, − 1.03 ± 2.9 mm	0.03^a	NR		University	The authors declare no sources of funding.
Meloni et al. [37]	2015	Italy	Yes	30 (30)	T: collagen matrix	C: soft tissue punch graft	DBB	Fenestration or dehiscence ≥3 mm on CBCT	CBCT	5 m	T⁻¹, − 0.67 ± 0.31 mm C⁻¹, − 0.54 ± 0.25 mm	0.34	T, − 1.47 ± 0.48 mm C, − 1.60 ± 0.69 mm	0.67	NR		Private practice	The authors declare no sources of funding.
											T⁻³, − 0.91 ± 0.26 mm C⁻³, − 0.83 ± 0.38 mm	0.61
											T⁻⁵, − 0.31 ± 0.18 mm C⁻⁵, − 0.26 ± 0.17 mm	0.55
Natto et al. [38]	2017	USA	Yes	28 (28)	T: collagen matrix	C: collagen sponge	FDBA	Presence of buccal plate	Clinical + CBCT	4 m	T⁻⁴, − 1.47 ± 1.29 mm C⁻⁴, − 1.21 ± 1.22 mm	0.49	T, − 0.79 ± 3.07 mm C, − 0.30 ± 1.09 mm	0.58	T⁻⁴, + 0.59 ± 1.28 mm C⁻⁴, + 0.90 ± 0.90 mm	0.46	University	Tufts University School of Dental Medicine
											T⁻⁷, − 0.96 ± 0.97 mm C⁻⁷, − 0.90 ± 1.02 mm	0.77			T⁻⁷, − 0.23 ± 1.42 mm C⁻⁷,+ 0.47 ± 1.16 mm	0.17
											T⁻¹⁰, − 0.57 ± 0.99 mm C⁻¹⁰, − 0.54 ± 0.95 mm	0.84			T⁻¹⁰, − 0.13 ± 1.07 mm C⁻¹⁰, + 0.05 ± 1.62 mm	0.73
Schneider et al. [39]	2014	Switzerland	Yes	19 (19)	T: collagen matrix	C: free gingival graft	DBBM-C	At least 50% of the buccal bone wall	Clinical	6 m	NR	NR			T, − 1.15 ± 0.50 mm C, − 1.16 ± 0.68 mm	1	University	University of Zurich and Geistlich Pharma AG

T and C superscript indicates the apical reference point from alveolar bone crest in mm (0, − 1, − 2, − 3, − 4, − 5, − 7, − 10 mm)
MBA Mineralized bone allograft, DBBM-C Demineralized bovine bone mineral + collagen matrix, DBB Demineralized bovine bone, FDBA Freeze-dried bone allograft, CBCT Cone beam computed tomography
^aStatistically significant

Back to article page