Title: Comparative evaluation of conventional and socket-shield techniques on maxillary esthetics following immediate implant placement in fresh extraction sockets: A randomized controlled trial
| dc.contributor.author | Farhan Durrani | |
| dc.contributor.author | Aishwarya Pandey | |
| dc.contributor.author | Shweta Ahlawat | |
| dc.contributor.author | Ekta Kumari | |
| dc.contributor.author | S. U. Gokila Vani | |
| dc.contributor.author | Sakshi Agarwal | |
| dc.contributor.author | P. G. Naveen Kumar | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2026-02-09T04:35:58Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2024 | |
| dc.description.abstract | Background: Dental implants in fresh extraction sockets of the maxillary esthetic area are technique-sensitive procedures where retaining a buccal root segment can enhance periodontium preservation and esthetics. This study aims to compare marginal bone levels and esthetic outcomes between conventional immediate implant placement and the socket-shield technique in fresh maxillary extraction sockets. Materials and Methods: Twenty-four patients with type 1 extraction sockets were included in this randomized trial and assigned to either conventional immediate implant placement or the socket-shield technique. Implant survival, crestal bone levels, and pink esthetic scores (PES) were evaluated at 8 months (temporary prosthesis), 12 months, and 36 months (final crowns). Results: All implant-supported restorations were successful within the study's observation period. The socket-shield technique showed significantly lower marginal bone loss (e.g. 1.40 ± 0.29 mm vs. 1.70 ± 0.36 mm at 36 months; P = 0.040) and superior PES (e.g., 10.50 ± 0.90 vs. 9.36 ± 0.98 at 36 months; P = 0.008) compared to the conventional technique. However, the technique's complexity underscores the need for expertise and careful execution to optimize tissue preservation in the maxillary esthetic zone. Conclusion: The socket-shield technique better preserves hard and soft tissues around implant-retained prostheses than conventional implant placement in maxillary esthetic regions. Further studies with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up are required to validate these findings. © 2025 Indian Society of Periodontology. | |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.4103/jisp.jisp_13_24 | |
| dc.identifier.issn | 0972124X | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://doi.org/10.4103/jisp.jisp_13_24 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://dl.bhu.ac.in/bhuir/handle/123456789/48781 | |
| dc.publisher | Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications | |
| dc.subject | Extraction socket | |
| dc.subject | immediate implants | |
| dc.subject | immediate temporization | |
| dc.subject | socket shield | |
| dc.title | Comparative evaluation of conventional and socket-shield techniques on maxillary esthetics following immediate implant placement in fresh extraction sockets: A randomized controlled trial | |
| dc.type | Publication | |
| dspace.entity.type | Article |
