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

• Published in: Clinical implant dentistry and related research Vol. 23; no. 3; pp. 456 - 465
• Main Authors: Atef, Mohamed, El Barbary, Ahmed, Dahrous, Mona Salah El‐D, Zahran, Amr Fouad
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Hoboken, USA John Wiley & Sons, Inc 01.06.2021; Wiley Subscription Services, Inc
• Subjects: alveolar bone remodeling; Bone resorption; Dentistry; Dimensional changes; immediate implant; Mucosa; Patient satisfaction; Patients; socket shield; Statistical analysis; Teeth; Tissues; Transplants & implants; xenograft; Xenografts; Xenotransplantation
• ISSN: 1523-0899; 1708-8208
• DOI: 10.1111/cid.13008

Objective Compare the dimensional changes of the peri‐implant soft and hard tissues clinically and radiographically around single immediate implants in the esthetic zone with socket shield technique versus filling the buccal gap with xenograft. Materials and methods Forty‐two patients with a single non‐restorable tooth in the esthetic zone replaced with an immediate implant were randomly assigned either to the socket shield technique (test) or to grafting the buccal gap with xenograft (control). The vertical and horizontal buccal bone resorption were measured 6‐months following implant placement. The esthetic outcomes were evaluated by assessing the Pink Esthetic Score (PES) and the amount of midfacial mucosal alteration, in addition to patient satisfaction assessment through a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) based questionnaire 1‐year following implant restoration. Results The present study showed that the socket shield group yielded significantly less vertical and horizontal buccal bone resorption of 0.35 (±0.62) mm and 0.29 (±0.34) mm compared to 1.71 (±1.02) mm and 1.45 (±0.72) mm in the xenograft group respectively. Also, there was a significantly greater midfacial mucosal recession in the xenograft group of 0.466 (±0.58) mm compared to midfacial mucosal coronal migration of 0.45 (±0.75) mm in the socket shield group. However, there was no statistically significant difference regarding the total PES and patient satisfaction in both treatment groups. Conclusion The socket shield technique can preserve hard and soft peri‐implant tissues following immediate implant placement. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03684356).