SynthesisClinical oral investigations2022
Could the socket shield technique be better than conventional immediate implantation? A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Clinical oral investigations, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical efficacy of socket shield technique compared to conventional immediate implant placement in the aesthetic zone: a meta-analysis.International journal of implant dentistry · 2025Pooled it
- Effect of the socket shield technique on alveolar ridge dimensional changes in sites with thin buccal bone phenotype: A randomized clinical trial.Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal · 2026Trial
- Modified socket shield technique versus unassisted socket healing: A randomized controlled clinical trial using CBCT-based dimensional analysis.Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal · 2026Article
- [Restorative strategies for complex crown-root fractures in the esthetic zone: a risk assessment based on the restoration-tooth-periodontium interface].Zhejiang da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Zhejiang University. Medical sciences · 2025Article
- Long-Term Stability of Alveolar Bone Dimensions Using the Socket Shield Technique: A Retrospective Cone Beam Computed Tomography Analysis.International journal of dentistry · 2025Article
- Alveolar Ridge Preservation Using a Novel Species-Specific Collagen-Enriched Deproteinized Bovine Bone Mineral: Histological Evaluation of a Prospective Case Series.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Can botulinum toxin injection alleviate the pain of bruxism? A Bayesian network analysis and a single-arm analysis.Journal of dental sciences · 2024Article
- Comparative evaluation of conventional and socket-shield techniques on maxillary esthetics following immediate implant placement in fresh extraction sockets: A randomized controlled trial.Journal of Indian Society of PeriodontologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe purpose of this study was to evaluate whether the clinical outcome of socket shield technique (SST) is superior to that of conventional immediate implantation (CII). MATERIALS AND
methodFive electronic databases (PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science, CNKI, and Google Scholar) were searched to identify randomized controlled trials up to June 31, 2021. Five evaluation indexes were extracted, namely, buccal bone resorption at the horizontal and vertical levels (BBH and BBV), the soft tissue recession assessed by pink evaluation scores (PES), patient satisfaction (PS), ISQ, and the success rate of implantation (SRI), to compare the superiority between SST and CII operations. All data analyses were performed using Review Manager (version 5.4).
resultsTen studies were included in this review. The sample included 388 implants, with 194 in the SST group and 194 in the CII group. Compared with the CII group, the SST group had a lower BBH and BBV (standardized mean difference (SMD), - 1.77; 95% CI, - 2.26 to - 1.28; P < 0.00001 and SMD, - 1.85; 95% CI, - 2.16 to 1.54; P < 0.00001), higher PES improvement (SMD, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.59 to 2.95; P < 0.00001), higher rate of PS (OR, 3.12; 95% CI, 1.08 to 9.04; P = 0.04), and slightly higher ISQ (SMD, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.28 to 1.15; P = 0.001).
conclusionsCompared with CII, SST could be a better option for esthetic area implantation, but evaluation of its long-term success is still needed. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: By comparing and analyzing the operations of immediate implant in esthetic zone, we could choose SST to effectively alleviate the absorption of bone tissue and improve the contouring of soft tissue after anterior teeth extraction, so as to achieve a more stable and superior clinical outcomes of implant in esthetic zone.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.