Could the socket shield technique be better than conventional immediate implantation? A meta-analysis

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 relevanceBy 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.