Efficacy of Socket-Shield Technique on Tissue Stability of Immediate Implant Placement: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis
R. Birang, J. Yaghini, S. Farhad, M. Shadmehri, Zohreh Afshari, P. Iranmanesh, M. Maracy, Amir Zadeh
{"title":"Efficacy of Socket-Shield Technique on Tissue Stability of Immediate Implant Placement: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis","authors":"R. Birang, J. Yaghini, S. Farhad, M. Shadmehri, Zohreh Afshari, P. Iranmanesh, M. Maracy, Amir Zadeh","doi":"10.4103/denthyp.denthyp_167_21","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: To compare the socket-shield technique (SST) with the conventional method of immediate implant placement (IIP) regarding stabilization of buccal hard and soft tissue, and esthetic management. Method and Materials: Randomized controlled trials (RCT) investigating SST, published in English, were searched in MEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane, ProQuest, OpenGrey, and Embase until May May 2021, in June 2021. The quality assessment of included RCTs was conducted using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tools. A STATA version 16 was used to determine mean difference with 95% confidence intervals for buccal plate width (BPW), buccal plate height (BPH), pink esthetic score (PES), and implant stability quotient for 3, 6, and 12 months follow-up subgroups. Results: Out of 4617 records, 10 RCTs were finally included for the review and meta-analysis. Regarding BPW, significant differences were observed in favor of SST after 6 months. Also significant difference was detected in BPH and PES in favor of SST compared to the conventional method for all time points. However, no significant difference was found regarding implant stability between the two groups. Conclusion: SST yields better outcomes in dimensional changes of bone and soft tissue, and is found to be superior to conventional IIP regarding esthetic results and stability of hard and soft tissue around implants.","PeriodicalId":43354,"journal":{"name":"Dental Hypotheses","volume":"13 1","pages":"75 - 81"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dental Hypotheses","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/denthyp.denthyp_167_21","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: To compare the socket-shield technique (SST) with the conventional method of immediate implant placement (IIP) regarding stabilization of buccal hard and soft tissue, and esthetic management. Method and Materials: Randomized controlled trials (RCT) investigating SST, published in English, were searched in MEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane, ProQuest, OpenGrey, and Embase until May May 2021, in June 2021. The quality assessment of included RCTs was conducted using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tools. A STATA version 16 was used to determine mean difference with 95% confidence intervals for buccal plate width (BPW), buccal plate height (BPH), pink esthetic score (PES), and implant stability quotient for 3, 6, and 12 months follow-up subgroups. Results: Out of 4617 records, 10 RCTs were finally included for the review and meta-analysis. Regarding BPW, significant differences were observed in favor of SST after 6 months. Also significant difference was detected in BPH and PES in favor of SST compared to the conventional method for all time points. However, no significant difference was found regarding implant stability between the two groups. Conclusion: SST yields better outcomes in dimensional changes of bone and soft tissue, and is found to be superior to conventional IIP regarding esthetic results and stability of hard and soft tissue around implants.
目的:比较牙套-屏蔽技术(SST)与传统即刻种植技术(IIP)在稳定口腔硬软组织和美观管理方面的差异。方法和材料:在MEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane, ProQuest, OpenGrey和Embase中检索调查SST的随机对照试验(RCT),以英文发表,直到2021年5月5日,2021年6月。采用Cochrane协作网的工具对纳入的随机对照试验进行质量评估。使用STATA version 16来确定颊板宽度(BPW)、颊板高度(BPH)、粉红色美观评分(PES)和种植体稳定性商在3、6和12个月随访亚组中的95%可信区间的平均差异。结果:4617条记录中,10项rct最终被纳入综述和荟萃分析。在BPW方面,6个月后观察到显著差异有利于SST。与传统方法相比,在所有时间点上,BPH和PES均有显著差异,有利于SST。然而,两组间种植体稳定性无显著差异。结论:SST在骨和软组织的尺寸变化方面有更好的效果,在美观效果和种植体周围硬软组织的稳定性方面优于传统的IIP。