Failure Rate, Marginal Bone Loss, and Pink Esthetic with Socket-Shield Technique for Immediate Dental Implant Placement in the Esthetic Zone. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Pilar Velasco Bohórquez; Roberta Rucco; Álvaro Zubizarreta-Macho; José María Montiel-Company; Susana de la Vega Buró; Esther Cáceres Madroño; Lara San Hipólito Marín; Sofía Hernández Montero

doi:10.3390/biology10060549

Failure Rate, Marginal Bone Loss, and Pink Esthetic with Socket-Shield Technique for Immediate Dental Implant Placement in the Esthetic Zone. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Biology (Basel). 2021 Jun 18;10(6):549. doi: 10.3390/biology10060549.

Authors

Pilar Velasco Bohórquez¹, Roberta Rucco¹, Álvaro Zubizarreta-Macho^{1

2}, José María Montiel-Company³, Susana de la Vega Buró¹, Esther Cáceres Madroño¹, Lara San Hipólito Marín¹, Sofía Hernández Montero¹

Affiliations

¹ Department of Implant Surgery, Faculty of Health Sciences, Alfonso X el Sabio University, 28691 Madrid, Spain.
² Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Salamanca, 37008 Salamanca, Spain.
³ Department of Stomatology, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Valencia, 46010 Valencia, Spain.

Abstract

Aim: To compare the failure rate, marginal bone loss, and pink esthetic for the socket-shield technique and the conventional technique for immediate dental implant placement in the esthetic zone. Material and methods: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis, based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) recommendations, of clinical studies that evaluated the failure rate, marginal bone loss, and pink esthetic with the socket-shield technique for immediate dental implant placement in the esthetic zone was performed. A total of 4 databases were consulted in the literature search: PubMed-MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science. After eliminating duplicated articles and applying the inclusion criteria, 16 articles were selected for the qualitative and quantitative analysis. Results: Four randomized controlled trials, five prospective clinical studies, four retrospective studies, and three case series were included in the meta-analysis. The dental implant failure rate for the socket-shield technique for immediate dental implant placement was 1.37% (95% CI, 0.21-2.54%); however, no statistically significant differences between the conventional and socket-shield technique were found. The estimated mean difference in the marginal bone loss for the socket-shield technique was -0.5 mm (95% CI, -0.82 to -0.18) and statistically significant (p < 0.01), with a high heterogeneity (I² = 99%). The mean pink esthetic score was 12.27 (Q test = 4.47; p-value = 0.61; I² = 0%). The difference in pink esthetic between the conventional (n = 55) and socket-shield techniques (n = 55) for immediate dental implant placement was 1.15 (95% CI, 0.73-1.58; Q test = 8.88; p value = 0.11; I² = 44%). The follow-up time was found to be significant (beta coefficient = 0.023; R² = 85.6%; QM = 3.82; p = 0.049) for the PES for the socket-shield technique. Conclusions: Within the limitations of this systematic review with meta-analysis, the dental implant failure rate did not differ between the socket-shield technique and conventional technique for immediate implant placement in the esthetic zone. However, a lower marginal bone loss and higher pink esthetic scores were found for the socket-shield technique compared to the conventional technique.

Keywords: immediate implant; implant failure; marginal bone loss; pink esthetic; socket shield.

Publication types

Review