SynthesisInternational journal of implant dentistry2025
Clinical efficacy of socket shield technique compared to conventional immediate implant placement in the aesthetic zone: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in International journal of implant dentistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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
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
Abstract
objectiveTo systematically evaluate and compare the clinical effects of the socket shield technique (SST) and conventional immediate implant placement (CIIP) in the esthetic zone through meta-analysis.
methodsA systematic search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Science and Technology Periodical Database (VIP), and Wanfang Database for studies comparing the clinical and aesthetic effects of SST and CIIP, with the retrieval period spanning from database inception to October 9, 2024. After independent literature screening, data extraction, and bias risk assessment were independently performed by two investigations according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. All data analyses were performed by RevMan 5.4 software.
resultsA total of 27 studies, including 22 randomized controlled trials and 5 non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSI), involving 1307 implants, were included in the meta-analysis. Meta-analysis demonstrated that SST significantly outperformed CIIP in reducing horizontal buccal bone loss (MD = -0.50, 95%CI [-0.60, -0.41], I
conclusionBased on the available evidence, SST demonstrated favorable outcomes in reducing buccal bone loss, enhancing esthetic outcomes and implant stability while maintaining comparable implant success rates to CIIP. Nevertheless, the technique exhibited technical sensitivity and a lack of standardized surgical protocols. Therefore, its clinical application should be approached with caution. Future high-quality studies with extended follow-up are required to validate long-term efficacy and establish standardized clinical guidelines.
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.