EFFECTIVENESS OF IMMEDIATE IMPLANT PLACEMENT IN ESTHETIC ZONE: A SCOPING REVIEW

Phú Thắng Nguyễn , Đình Vinh La, Thị Hải Vân Hoàng , Sơn Tùng Đỗ , Thị Bích Hạnh Phan , Đức Hoàng Nguyễn

Main Article Content

Abstract

Objective: Evaluate the effectiveness of immediate implant placement methods in the aesthetic area using one of three methods: Dual-zone, connective tissue graft and socket shield (Partial tooth extraction technique). Methods: Scoping review conducted on electronic databases PubMed and Embase. Output parameters of interest include implant survival rate, mean buccal bone change (MBBC) and pink aesthetic score (PES). Results: A total of 17 studies performed three techniques of immediate implantation in the aesthetic area. All three techniques: connective tissue graft, socket shield and dual-zone are effective in implant placement. The socket-shield technique has the highest implant survival rate among the three techniques with 100% survival rate in all studies. Connective tissue grafting technique gives the best cosmetic results with average PES from 12.1 ± 1.28 to 12.5 ± 1.37. Dual-zone technique has not had many studies conducted in clinical trials compared with other methods. Conclusion: All three techniques of socket-shield, dual zone and connective tissue graft can be effectively applied in immediate implant implantation in aesthetic areas.

Article Details

References

1. Chu S, Salama M, Salama H, et al. The dual-zone therapeutic concept of managing immediate implant placement and provisional restoration in anterior extraction sockets. Compend Contin Educ Dent Jamesburg NJ 1995. 2012;33:524-532, 534.
2. Kumar PR, Kher U. Shield the socket: Procedure, case report and classification. J Indian Soc Periodontol. 2018;22(3):266-272. doi: 10.4103/ jisp.jisp_78_18
3. Wanis RW, Hosny MM, ElNahass H. Clinical evaluation of the buccal aspect around immediate implant using dual zone therapeutic concept versus buccal gap fill to bone level: A randomized controlled clinical trial. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2022;24(3):307-319. doi:10.1111/cid.13091
4. Zembić A, Glauser R, Khraisat A, Hämmerle CHF. Immediate vs. early loading of dental implants: 3-year results of a randomized controlled clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010;21(5): 481-489. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501. 2009.01898.x
5. Atieh MA, Shah M, Abdulkareem M, AlQahtani HA, Alsabeeha NHM. The socket shield technique for immediate implant placement: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Esthet Restor Dent Off Publ Am Acad Esthet Dent Al. 2021;33(8): 1186-1200. doi: 10.1111/ jerd.12812
6. 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(2): 181-191. doi: 10.1111/clr.13554
7. 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(5):602-611. doi:10.1111/cid.12938
8. Puisys A, Deikuviene J, Vindasiute-Narbute E, Razukevicus D, Zvirblis T, Linkevicius T. Connective tissue graft vs porcine collagen matrix after immediate implant placement in esthetic area: A randomized clinical trial. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2022;24(2): 141-150. doi:10.1111/ cid.13058