PDF icon PDF herunterladen
Open Access
CC BY 4.0 · Eur J Dent
DOI: 10.1055/s-0045-1806862
Review Article

The Influence of Different Implant Placement Techniques on Alveolar Ridge Preservation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Nguyen Phu Thang
1   Department of Oral Surgery, School of Dentistry, Hanoi Medical University, Hanoi, Vietnam
,
Nguyen Thi Khanh Ly
1   Department of Oral Surgery, School of Dentistry, Hanoi Medical University, Hanoi, Vietnam
,
Do Thi Thanh Toan
2   Department of Medical Statistics and Informatics, Institute for Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Hanoi Medical University, Hanoi, Vietnam
,
Nguyen Thu Tra
3   Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Hanoi Medical University, Hanoi, Vietnam
,
Nguyen Minh Duc
1   Department of Oral Surgery, School of Dentistry, Hanoi Medical University, Hanoi, Vietnam
4   Division of Research and Treatment for Oral Maxillofacial Congenital Anomalies, Aichi Gakuin University, Nagoya, Japan
› Institutsangaben
› Weitere Informationen
Auch verfügbar aufeRef
  Lizenzen und Reprints
Preview

Abstract

This systematic review and meta-analysis compares the effectiveness of three implant placement techniques: socket shield technique (SST), conventional immediate implant placement (CIIP), and delayed implant placement (DIP) in alveolar ridge preservation, implant survival rates, and esthetics. A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library, covering studies from 2012 to 2022. Inclusion criteria targeted clinical studies with a minimum follow-up of 6 months. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB-2 and ROBINS-I tools, and meta-analyses were performed using random-effects models. Sixteen studies met the inclusion criteria. SST demonstrated significantly better preservation of buccal bone thickness (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 2.94, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.46–4.42, p < 0.001) and height (SMD = 4.47, 95% CI: 1.96–6.98, p < 0.001) compared with CIIP. SST also resulted in higher pink esthetic scores (SMD = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.36–1.64, p = 0.002). No significant differences were found between CIIP and DIP for marginal bone loss (SMD = 0.15, 95% CI: −0.26 to 0.55, p = 0.471). However, DIP showed a lower implant failure rate than CIIP (odds ratio = 3.49, 95% CI: 1.26–9.66, p = 0.016). SST offers significant benefits in preserving alveolar bone and improving esthetic outcomes, while DIP appears to reduce implant failure risk. Further standardized studies are needed to confirm these findings and refine clinical guidelines.

Keywords

alveolar bone - socket shield - immediate implant placement


Publikationsverlauf

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
23. April 2025

© 2025. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Quisiguiña Salem C, Ruiz Delgado E, Crespo Reinoso PA, Robalino JJ. Alveolar ridge preservation: a review of concepts and controversies. Natl J Maxillofac Surg 2023; 14 (02) 167-176
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 2 Hürzeler 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 (09) 855-862
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 3 Gluckman H, Salama M, Du Toit J. Partial extraction therapies (PET) part 2: procedures and technical aspects. Int J Periodont Restor Dent 2017; 37 (03) 377-385
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 4 Chen ST, Buser D. Clinical and esthetic outcomes of implants placed in postextraction sites. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009; 24 (Suppl): 186-217
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 5 Koh RU, Rudek I, Wang H-L. Immediate implant placement: positives and negatives. Implant Dent 2010; 19 (02) 98-108
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 6 Pickert FN, Spalthoff S, Gellrich NC, Blaya Tárraga JA. Cone-beam computed tomographic evaluation of dimensional hard tissue changes following alveolar ridge preservation techniques of different bone substitutes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Periodontal Implant Sci 2022; 52 (01) 3-27
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 7 Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ. et al. Updated guidance for trusted systematic reviews: a new edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2019; 10 (10) ED000142
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 8 Miller SA, Forrest JL. Enhancing your practice through evidence-based decision making: PICO, learning how to ask good questions. J Evid Based Dent Pract 2001; 1 (02) 136-141
    CrossrefSuche in Google Scholar
  • 9 Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ. et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2019; 366: l4898
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 10 Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC. et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ 2016; 355: i4919
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 11 Deeks JJ, Higgins JP, Altman DG. Cochrane Statistical Methods Group. Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses. Cochrane Handbook for systematic reviews of intervention 2019: 241-284
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 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 (05) 602-611
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 13 Bramanti E, Norcia A, Cicciù M. et al. Postextraction dental implant in the aesthetic zone, socket shield technique versus conventional protocol. J Craniofac Surg 2018; 29 (04) 1037-1041
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 14 Sun C, Zhao J, Liu Z. 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 (02) 181-191
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 15 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 (04) 552-560
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 16 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: 479-494
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 17 Tallarico M, Xhanari E, Pisano M, Gatti F, Meloni SM. Molar replacement with 7 mm-wide diameter implants: to place the implant immediately or to wait 4 months after socket preservation? 1 year after loading results from a randomised controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implantology 2017; 10 (02) 169-178
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 18 Esposito M, Zucchelli G, Cannizzaro G. et al. 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 Implantology 2017; 10 (01) 11-26
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 19 Checchi V, Felice P, Zucchelli G. et al. Wide diameter immediate post-extractive implants vs delayed placement of normal-diameter implants in preserved sockets in the molar region: 1-year post-loading outcome of a randomised controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implantology 2017; 10 (03) 263-278
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 20 Esposito M, Barausse C, Pistilli R. et al. Immediate loading of post-extractive versus delayed placed single implants in the anterior maxilla: outcome of a pragmatic multicenter randomised controlled trial 1-year after loading. Eur J Oral Implantology 2015; 8 (04) 347-358
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 21 Felice P, Pistilli R, Barausse C, Trullenque-Eriksson A, Esposito M. Immediate non-occlusal loading of immediate post-extractive versus delayed placement of single implants in preserved sockets of the anterior maxilla: 1-year post-loading outcome of a randomised controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implantology 2015; 8 (04) 361-372
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 22 Cucchi A, Vignudelli E, Franco S. et al. Tapered, double-lead threads single implants placed in fresh extraction sockets and healed sites of the posterior jaws: a multicenter randomized controlled trial with 1 to 3 years of follow-up. BioMed Res Int 2017; 2017: 8017175
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 23 Barakat DA, Hassan RS, Eldibany RM. Evaluation of the socket shield technique for immediate implantation. Alex Dent J 2017; 42 (02) 155-161
    CrossrefSuche in Google Scholar
  • 24 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 (03) 2047-2055
    CrossrefSuche in Google Scholar
  • 25 Hana SA, Omar OA. Socket shield technique for dental implants in the esthetic zone, clinical and radiographical evaluation. J Duhok Univ 2020; 23 (01) 69-80
    CrossrefSuche in Google Scholar
  • 26 Mathew L, Manjunath N, Anagha N, Ashok A. Comparative evaluation of socket-shield and immediate implant placement. Int J Innov Sci Res Technol 2020; 5 (04) 1364-1369
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 27 Raes F, Cosyn J, De Bruyn H. Clinical, aesthetic, and patient-related outcome of immediately loaded single implants in the anterior maxilla: a prospective study in extraction sockets, healed ridges, and grafted sites. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2013; 15 (06) 819-835
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 28 Avila-Ortiz G, Chambrone L, Vignoletti F. Effect of alveolar ridge preservation interventions following tooth extraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Periodontol 2019; 46 (Suppl. 21) 195-223
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 29 Aribau-Gumà C, Jorba-García A, Sánchez-Torres A, Sànchez-Garcés MÀ. Alveolar ridge preservation: an overview of systematic reviews. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2022; 51 (02) 234-242
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 30 Blaschke C, Schwass DR. The socket-shield technique: a critical literature review. Int J Implant Dent 2020; 6 (01) 52
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 31 Oliva S, Capogreco M, Murmura G, Lupi E, Mariachiara DC, D'Amario M. The socket shield technique and its complications, implant survival rate, and clinical outcomes: a systematic review. J Periodontal Implant Sci 2023; 53 (02) 99-109
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 32 Nimbalkar S, Dhatrak P, Gherde C, Joshi S. A review article on factors affecting bone loss in dental implants. Mater Today Proc 2021; 43: 970-976
    CrossrefSuche in Google Scholar
  • 33 Soydan SS, Cubuk S, Oguz Y, Uckan S. Are success and survival rates of early implant placement higher than immediate implant placement?. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2013; 42 (04) 511-515
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar