Evaluation of Timing of Implant Placement in Maxillary Esthetic Zone with Type I Extraction Sockets- A Randomized Controlled Trial

Overview

Journal Clin Cosmet Investig Dent

Publisher Dove Medical Press

Date 2024 Dec 12

PMID 39664798

Authors

Muthukumar Santhanakrishnan

Vedavalli Subramanian

Devi Arul

Sri Vidhya Marimuthu

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: The present study aimed to evaluate the appropriate protocol to be followed in the maxillary esthetic zone involving single dental implants by comparing three implant placement protocols: immediate implant placement (IIP) with and without the socket shield technique (SST) and delayed implant placement (DIP) in terms of dynamic alterations in hard and soft tissues and patient-related outcome measures (PROMS).

Materials And Methods: A total of 75 patients were recruited for the study and randomly allocated to the SST, IIP, and DIP groups (25 each). They were subjected to Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) assessment pre-operatively, 6 and 12 months post-operatively to evaluate changes in Crestal Bone Thickness (CBT). Soft tissue changes were evaluated using the pink aesthetic score (PES) and visual analogue scale (VAS) to assess the pain threshold and patient satisfaction.

Results: There was a statistically significant difference in the mean reductions in crestal bone thickness (CBT) between and among the groups. The SST group demonstrated a significantly lower reduction in CBT (0.09) than the IIP and DIP groups, which showed a mean reduction in CBT of 0.18 and 0.50 at (p<0.01), respectively, at the end of 12 months. However, when the mean differences in PES between the groups were compared, there was a statistically significant difference for SST 13(2), IIP 10(2), and DIP 9(2) (p<0.01).

Conclusion: Socket shield technique could be technique of choice for IIP when buccal bone thickness is <1mm as demonstrated by less reduction in CBT and better PES at the end of 12 months than the IIP and DIP groups.

References

Sun C, Zhao J, Liu Z, Tan L, Huang Y, Zhao L . Comparing conventional flap-less immediate implantation and socket-shield technique for esthetic and clinical outcomes: A randomized clinical study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2019; 31(2):181-191. DOI: 10.1111/clr.13554. View

Bramanti E, Norcia A, Cicciu M, Matacena G, Cervino G, Troiano G . Postextraction Dental Implant in the Aesthetic Zone, Socket Shield Technique Versus Conventional Protocol. J Craniofac Surg. 2018; 29(4):1037-1041. DOI: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000004419. View

Chen S, Buser D . Esthetic outcomes following immediate and early implant placement in the anterior maxilla--a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014; 29 Suppl:186-215. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.2014suppl.g3.3. View

Clementini M, Agostinelli A, Castelluzzo W, Cugnata F, Vignoletti F, de Sanctis M . The effect of immediate implant placement on alveolar ridge preservation compared to spontaneous healing after tooth extraction: Radiographic results of a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Clin Periodontol. 2019; 46(7):776-786. DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.13125. View

Block M, Mercante D, Lirette D, Mohamed W, Ryser M, Castellon P . Prospective evaluation of immediate and delayed provisional single tooth restorations. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009; 67(11 Suppl):89-107. DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2009.07.009. View

Chappuis V, Araujo M, Buser D . Clinical relevance of dimensional bone and soft tissue alterations post-extraction in esthetic sites. Periodontol 2000. 2016; 73(1):73-83. DOI: 10.1111/prd.12167. View

Atalay B, Ramazanoglu M, Tozan E, Ozyuvaci H . Pain intensity and its objective determinants following implant surgery and sinus lifting: A 1-year prospective study. Niger J Clin Pract. 2017; 20(9):1139-1144. DOI: 10.4103/1119-3077.217253. View

Tarnow D, Chu S, Salama M, Stappert C, Salama H, Garber D . Flapless postextraction socket implant placement in the esthetic zone: part 1. The effect of bone grafting and/or provisional restoration on facial-palatal ridge dimensional change-a retrospective cohort study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2014; 34(3):323-31. DOI: 10.11607/prd.1821. View

Tiwari S, Bedi R, Wadhwani P, Aurora J, Chauhan H . Comparison of Immediate Implant Placement Following Extraction with and Without Socket-Shield Technique in Esthetic Region. J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2020; 19(4):552-560. PMC: 7524947. DOI: 10.1007/s12663-019-01272-3. View

10.

Felice P, Zucchelli G, Cannizzaro G, Barausse C, Diazzi M, Trullenque-Eriksson A . Immediate, immediate-delayed (6 weeks) and delayed (4 months) post-extractive single implants: 4-month post-loading data from a randomised controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2016; 9(3):233-247. View

11.

Rondone E, Leitao-Almeida B, Pereira M, Fernandes G, Borges T . The Use of Tissue Grafts Associated with Immediate Implant Placement to Achieve Better Peri-Implant Stability and Efficacy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Clin Med. 2024; 13(3). PMC: 10856075. DOI: 10.3390/jcm13030821. View

12.

Abd-Elrahman A, Shaheen M, Askar N, Atef M . Socket shield technique vs conventional immediate implant placement with immediate temporization. Randomized clinical trial. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2020; 22(5):602-611. DOI: 10.1111/cid.12938. View

13.

Buser D, Chappuis V, Belser U, Chen S . Implant placement post extraction in esthetic single tooth sites: when immediate, when early, when late?. Periodontol 2000. 2016; 73(1):84-102. DOI: 10.1111/prd.12170. View

14.

Araujo M, Lindhe J . Dimensional ridge alterations following tooth extraction. An experimental study in the dog. J Clin Periodontol. 2005; 32(2):212-8. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2005.00642.x. View

15.

Esposito M, Zucchelli G, Cannizzaro G, Checchi L, Barausse C, Trullenque-Eriksson A . Immediate, immediate-delayed (6 weeks) and delayed (4 months) post-extractive single implants: 1-year post-loading data from a randomised controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2017; 10(1):11-26. View

16.

Baumer D, Zuhr O, Rebele S, Schneider D, Schupbach P, Hurzeler 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. 2013; 17(1):71-82. DOI: 10.1111/cid.12076. View

17.

Atef M, El Barbary A, Dahrous M, Zahran A . Comparison of the soft and hard peri-implant tissue dimensional changes around single immediate implants in the esthetic zone with socket shield technique versus using xenograft: A randomized controlled clinical trial. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2021; 23(3):456-465. DOI: 10.1111/cid.13008. View

18.

de Siqueira G, Tavares J, Pedrosa R, De Siqueira R, Fernandes G . Immediate Implant With Provisionalization and Soft Tissue Grafting After 4-Year Follow-Up. Clin Adv Periodontics. 2021; 12(1):32-38. DOI: 10.1002/cap.10162. View

19.

Santhanakrishnan M, Ramesh N, Kamaleeshwari R, Subramanian V . Variations in Soft and Hard Tissues following Immediate Implant Placement versus Delayed Implant Placement following Socket Preservation in the Maxillary Esthetic Region: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial. Biomed Res Int. 2021; 2021:5641185. PMC: 8505071. DOI: 10.1155/2021/5641185. View

20.

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 Restorative Dent. 2007; 27(6):521-7. View