Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science

Korean Academy of Periodontology (대한치주과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The socket shield technique and its complications, implant survival rate, and clinical outcomes: a systematic review

  • Stefano Oliva (Department of Life, Health and Environmental Sciences, University of L'Aquila) ;
  • Mario Capogreco (Department of Life, Health and Environmental Sciences, University of L'Aquila) ;
  • Giovanna Murmura (Department of Medical, Oral and Biotechnological Sciences, University “G. d'Annunzio” of Chieti-Pescara) ;
  • Ettore Lupi (Maxillo-Facial Surgery Unit, Department of Life, Health and Environmental Sciences, University of L'Aquila) ;
  • Di Carlo Mariachiara (Department of Life, Health and Environmental Sciences, University of L'Aquila) ;
  • Maurizio D'Amario (Department of Life, Health and Environmental Sciences, University of L'Aquila)
  • Received : 2022.02.18
  • Accepted : 2022.07.26
  • Published : 2023.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the effectiveness of the socket shield technique (SST), an innovative surgical method introduced in 2010, for reducing buccal bone plate resorption. Methods: The review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. Clinical studies conducted in humans and investigating the SST were searched on PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, Web of Knowledge, and Google Scholar in November and December 2021. The implant survival rate, percentage of complications, and clinical parameters (marginal bone loss [MBL], pink esthetic score [PES], and buccal bone plate resorption [BBPR]) were analyzed using the collected data. Results: The initial search resulted in 132 articles. After article screening, the full texts of 19 studies were read and 17 articles were finally included in the review. In total, 656 implants were installed with the SST. Nine of the 656 implants experienced failure, resulting in an implant survival rate of 98.6%. The percentage of complications was about 3.81%. The analysis of clinical parameters (MBL, PES, and BBPR), showed favorable results for the SST. The mean MBL in implants placed with the SST was 0.39±0.28 mm versus 1.00±0.55 mm in those placed without the SST. PES had a better outcome in the SST group, with an average of 12.08±1.18 versus 10.77±0.74. BBPR had more favorable results in implants placed with the SST (0.32±0.10 mm) than in implants placed with the standard technique (1.05±0.18 mm). Conclusions: The SST could be considered beneficial for preserving the buccal bone plate. However, since only 7 of the included studies were long-term randomized controlled trials comparing the SST with the standard implant placement technique, the conclusions drawn from this systematic review should be interpreted with caution.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

The authors thank Dr. Massimo Natale (private practice in Capo d'Orlando, Italy), for the clinical pictures.

References

  1. Amler MH, Johnson PL, Salman I. Histological and histochemical investigation of human alveolar socket healing in undisturbed extraction wounds. J Am Dent Assoc 1960;61:32-44. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.1960.0152
  2. Schropp L, Wenzel A, Kostopoulos L, Karring T. Bone healing and soft tissue contour changes following single-tooth extraction: a clinical and radiographic 12-month prospective study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2003;23:313-23.
  3. Araujo MG, Lindhe J. Dimensional ridge alterations following tooth extraction. An experimental study in the dog. J Clin Periodontol 2005;32:212-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2005.00642.x
  4. Botticelli D, Berglundh T, Lindhe J. Hard-tissue alterations following immediate implant placement in extraction sites. J Clin Periodontol 2004;31:820-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2004.00565.x
  5. Araujo M, Linder E, Wennstrom J, Lindhe J. The influence of Bio-Oss Collagen on healing of an extraction socket: an experimental study in the dog. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2008;28:123-35.
  6. Araujo MG, Lindhe J. Socket grafting with the use of autologous bone: an experimental study in the dog. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011;22:9-13. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.01937.x
  7. Lekovic V, Camargo PM, Klokkevold PR, Weinlaender M, Kenney EB, Dimitrijevic B, et al. Preservation of alveolar bone in extraction sockets using bioabsorbable membranes. J Periodontol 1998;69:1044-9. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.1998.69.9.1044
  8. Hurzeler MB, Zuhr O, Schupbach P, Rebele SF, Emmanouilidis N, Fickl S. The socket-shield technique: a proof-of-principle report. J Clin Periodontol 2010;37:855-62. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2010.01595.x
  9. Baumer D, Zuhr O, Rebele S, Hurzeler M. Socket shield technique for immediate implant placement - clinical, radiographic and volumetric data after 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res 2017;28:1450-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13012
  10. Gluckman H, Salama M, Du Toit J. 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. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2018;20:122-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12554
  11. Siormpas KD, Mitsias ME, Kotsakis GA, Tawil I, Pikos MA, Mangano FG. The root membrane technique: a retrospective clinical study with up to 10 years of follow-up. Implant Dent 2018;27:564-74. https://doi.org/10.1097/ID.0000000000000818
  12. Mitsias ME, Siormpas KD, Kotsakis GA, Ganz SD, Mangano C, Iezzi G. The root membrane technique: human histologic evidence after 5 years of function. BioMed Res Int 2017;2017:7269467.
  13. Kumar PR, Kher U. Shield the socket: procedure, case report and classification. J Indian Soc Periodontol 2018;22:266-72. https://doi.org/10.4103/jisp.jisp_78_18
  14. Gharpure AS, Bhatavadekar NB. Current evidence on the socket-shield technique: a systematic review. J Oral Implantol 2017;43:395-403. https://doi.org/10.1563/aaid-joi-D-17-00118
  15. Mourya A, Mishra SK, Gaddale R, Chowdhary R. Socket-shield technique for implant placement to stabilize the facial gingival and osseous architecture: a systematic review. J Investig Clin Dent 2019;10:e12449.
  16. Hinze M, Janousch R, Goldhahn S, Schlee M. Volumetric alterations around single-tooth implants using the socket-shield technique: preliminary results of a prospective case series. Int J Esthet Dent 2018;13:146-70.
  17. Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ 2015;350:g7647.
  18. Siormpas KD, Mitsias ME, Kontsiotou-Siormpa E, Garber D, Kotsakis GA. Immediate implant placement in the esthetic zone utilizing the "root-membrane" technique: clinical results up to 5 years postloading. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014;29:1397-405. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.3707
  19. Abadzhiev M, Nenkov P, Velcheva P. Conventional immediate implant placement and immediate placement with socket-shield technique which is better. Int J Clin Med Res 2014;1:176-80.
  20. Mitsias MM, Bratos M, Siormpas K, Pikos MA, Kotsakis GA; Root Membrane Group. Longitudinal soft tissue changes during periodontal ligament-mediated immediate implant placement with the rootmembrane technique. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2020;35:379-85. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.7245
  21. Hana SA, Omar OA. Socket shield technique for dental implants in the esthetic zone, clinical and radiographical evaluation. J Duhok Univ 2020;23:69-80. https://doi.org/10.26682/sjuod.2020.23.1.8
  22. Bramanti E, Norcia A, Cicciu M, Matacena G, Cervino G, Troiano G, et al. Postextraction dental implant in the aesthetic zone, socket shield technique versus conventional protocol. J Craniofac Surg 2018;29:1037-41. https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000004419
  23. Sun C, Zhao J, Liu Z, Tan L, Huang Y, Zhao L, et al. Comparing conventional flap-less immediate implantation and socket-shield technique for esthetic and clinical outcomes: a randomized clinical study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2020;31:181-91. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13554
  24. Tiwari S, Bedi RS, Wadhwani P, Aurora JK, Chauhan H. Comparison of immediate implant placement following extraction with and without socket-shield technique in esthetic region. J Maxillofac Oral Surg 2020;19:552-60.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-019-01272-3
  25. Barakat D, Hassan R, Eldibany R. Valuation of the socket shield technique for immediate implantation. Alexandria Dent J 2017;42:155-61. https://doi.org/10.21608/adjalexu.2017.57919
  26. Atef M, El Barbary A, Dahrous MS, Zahran AF. 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;23:456-65. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.13008
  27. 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;22:602-11. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12938
  28. Santhanakrishnan M, Subramanian V, Ramesh N, Kamaleeshwari R. Radiographic and esthetic evaluation following immediate implant placement with or without socket shield and delayed implant placement following socket preservation in the maxillary esthetic region - a randomized controlled clinical trial. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent 2021;13:479-94. https://doi.org/10.2147/CCIDE.S332687
  29. Troiano M, Benincasa M, Sanchez P, Calvo-Guirado J. Bundle bone preservation with Root-T-Belt: case study. Ann Oral Maxillofac Surg 2014;2:7.
  30. Han CH, Park KB, Mangano FG. The modified socket shield technique. J Craniofac Surg 2018;29:2247-54. https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000004494
  31. Fattouh H. Socket- shield technique versus guided bone regeneration technique for ridge preservation with immediate implant placement in the esthetic zone. Egypt Dent J 2018;64:2047-55. https://doi.org/10.21608/edj.2018.76748
  32. Esposito M, Grusovin MG, Coulthard P, Thomsen P, Worthington HV. A 5-year follow-up comparative analysis of the efficacy of various osseointegrated dental implant systems: a systematic review of randomized controlled clinical trials. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2005;20:557-68.
  33. Adell R, Lekholm U, Rockler B, Branemark PI. A 15-year study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Int J Oral Surg 1981;10:387-416. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-9785(81)80077-4
  34. Jung YC, Han CH, Lee KW. A 1-year radiographic evaluation of marginal bone around dental implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1996;11:811-8.