Esthetic outcomes of socket-shield technique for immediate implantation in the maxillary anterior zone and its effect on gingival morphology
10.3760/cma.j.cn341190-20221123-00940
- VernacularTitle:根壁保留技术在上颌前牙美学区种植中的应用及对牙龈形态的影响
- Author:
Yin LI
1
;
Zheng CAO
;
Wenhui JIANG
Author Information
1. 湖州市中心医院口腔科，湖州 313000
- Keywords:
Tooth loss;
Dental implantation;
Alveolar bone loss;
Esthetics, dental;
Gingiva
- From:
Chinese Journal of Primary Medicine and Pharmacy
2024;31(4):501-504
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To investigate the esthetic outcomes of socket-shield technique (SST) for immediate implantation in the maxillary anterior zone and its effect on gingival morphology.Methods:This case-control study included 75 patients with maxillary anterior tooth defects who were treated at Huzhou Central Hospital between January 2019 and September 2021. Based on their respective treatment methods, these patients were divided into two groups: SST implantation ( n = 30) and immediate implantation ( n = 45). All patients were followed up for 1 year. During this period, the thickness of the labial plate, pink esthetic score, probing depth, and patient satisfaction were compared between the two groups. Results:At 6 and 12 months post-surgery, the SST group exhibited significantly lower labial plate bone resorption [(0.24 ± 0.07) mm, (0.41 ± 0.10) mm] compared with the immediate implantation group [(0.56 ± 0.11) mm, (0.86 ± 0.15) mm, t = 14.12, 14.41, both P < 0.001]. Furthermore, at both time points, the SST group scored significantly higher in curvature, height, color, and texture of the labial gingival margin using the pink esthetic score scale ( t6 months = 7.13, 6.38, 5.45, 4.92; t12 months = 3.43, 2.92, 7.50, 6.25, all P < 0.05). The mesial and distal papilla scores did not differ significantly between the SST and immediate implantation groups at various time points (all P > 0.05). However, at 6 months post-surgery, the periodontal probing depth in the SST group was (1.21 ± 0.06) mm, which was significantly lower than the corresponding value of (1.92 ± 0.07) mm in the immediate implantation group ( t = 45.49, P < 0.001). By 12 months post-surgery, no significant difference in periodontal probing depth was observed between the two groups ( P > 0.05). Additionally, there was no significant difference in patient satisfaction between the SST and immediate implantation groups ( P > 0.05). Conclusion:SST effectively addresses insufficient labial bone mass and prevents bone resorption. Additionally, it is advantageous for restoring the morphology of the labial alveolar process and soft tissue level. Clinically, its application produces similar results to immediate implantation.
