ArticleJournal of Indian Society of Periodontology
Comparative evaluation of conventional and socket-shield techniques on maxillary esthetics following immediate implant placement in fresh extraction sockets: A randomized controlled trial.
Article in Journal of Indian Society of Periodontology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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; 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.
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.