Accurate registration of peri-implant soft tissues to create an optimal emergence profile

A technique to convert a 3D printed cast used in the fabrication of an interim implant-supported crown into a definitive cast capturing the acquired emergence profile

An esthetic peri-implant soft tissue contour is a critical element of the success of implant restorations in the esthetic zone. Once the optimal transmucosal soft tissue profile is formed, it needs to be accurately replicated on the master cast. This clinical technique involves the utilization of a silicone putty positioning index placed in the patient's mouth to accurately duplicate the external contour of teeth and soft tissue. By combining this positioning index with the implant-supported interim crown, the 3D-printed initial cast, which was used to fabricate the interim crown, can be conveniently and efficiently transformed into a definitive master cast.

Prosthetic Design Factors Influencing Peri-Implant Disease: A Comprehensive Review

Peri-implant disease, encompassing peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis, presents a growing challenge in implant dentistry. This comprehensive review explores the intricate interplay between prosthetic design factors and the development of peri-implant disease. By analyzing the impact of prosthetic components on microbial colonization, mechanical stress, and soft tissue health, the review highlights their crucial role in disease prevention and management. Additionally, it emphasizes the significance of maintenance protocols, prosthetic adjustments, and patient education in ensuring favorable long-term outcomes. The review underscores the potential for future advancements in prosthetic design, including innovative materials and digital technologies, and stresses the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration in optimizing patient care. Overall, the review underscores the critical role of prosthetic design in addressing the complexities of peri-implant disease, offering insights for clinicians and researchers to enhance the success and longevity of implant-supported restorations.

Comparing Dual-Zone Immediate Implant Placement and Socket Shield Technique for Ridge Width Changes in the Maxilla: A Prospective Cohort Study

PURPOSE

The aim of this prospective cohort study was to assess the facial-palatal ridge dimensional changes that occurred at 8-10 months following flapless dual-zone (DZ) immediate implant placement and socket-shield (SS) immediate placement in the maxilla.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 19 patients who received 20 implants were included, with 10 implants (MegaGen AnyRidge) placed for each treatment, DZ and SS. Cast models were made at 8-10 months after implant placement to assess the dimensional ridge changes by measuring the facial-palatal ridge width on implant sites (T) at six designated points starting from the gingival margin (0, 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7) and comparing it with the corresponding measurement on the contralateral tooth site (C).

RESULTS

All 20 implants demonstrated successful osseointegration at 8-10 months follow-up (survival rate 100%). Two out of ten cases of SS group presented with minor manageable complications of external shield exposure. DZ group showed an average of 0.3 mm facial-palatal ridge width reduction, while SS group revealed a mean gain in ridge width of approximately 0.2 mm at 8-10 months follow-up.

CONCLUSION

When comparing between two treatments, there was a significant difference in ridge width change at 8-10 months following implant placement, indicating better preservation of the ridge contour for socket shield technique.

Is socket shielding an option in esthetic region?

The implant cannot preserve the surrounding bone from resorption when placed in the extraction socket. After teeth extraction, a change in the bony architecture of the anterior region makes oral rehabilitation difficult by an implant. This leads us to explore such a critical issue and the relevant data were collected from Pubmed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane database and reviewed. Socket shielding technique is intentional retention of the buccal segment of root fragment during the implant placement in the extraction socket. Socket shielding is an effective procedure in minimizing the buccal bone resorption along with minimizing the buccal contour changes it is minimally invasive as the bone graft is optional thus reducing the cost of the treatment procedure. The limited studies were available to support the routine clinical use of the socket shielding technique. Socket shielding seems to become the non-invasive technique for the preservation of hard and soft tissue by dental implant especially in the esthetic zone in the future. Therefore studies should be carried out on a large population to obtained more précised results related to the socket shielding technique.

Immediate implant placement with socket shield technique in the maxilla: a prospective case series evaluation at 1-year follow-up

Background

The aims of this case series were to investigate the clinical, radiographic, implant success, complication incidence, esthetic, and patient-reported outcomes of 10 immediately placed implants associated with the socket shield technique at 12 months post-loading and to assess the ridge width changes that occurred at 8 months following implant placement.

Methods

A total of 10 patients received 10 socket shield immediate implants (MegaGen AnyRidge). At 8 months postimplantation, casts were made to assess the ridge width changes by measuring the ridge width at the implant sites and comparing them with the corresponding measurements at the contralateral tooth site. At 12 months post-loading, clinical indices, marginal bone loss, pink esthetic score, and patient-assessed outcomes were evaluated. The mean, standard deviation and median were calculated for all continuous variables.

Results

All implants demonstrated a 100% success rate, while 2 implants presented with external shield exposure that was managed successfully. The mean marginal bone loss was 0.08 ± 0.14 mm mesially and 0.21 ± 0.23 mm distally. Esthetic evaluation yielded an average modified pink esthetic score of 8.65. A mean gain of 0.17 mm in the facial-palatal ridge width was recorded at 8 months postimplantation.

Conclusions

The socket shield technique enhanced the functional and esthetic results by preserving the alveolar bone and peri-implant soft tissues. However, this is a sensitive technique and still needs more robust evidence before it can be recommended for everyday clinical practice.

Socket shield technique and delayed implant placement in maxilla: a series of five case reports

Background

Tooth extraction is often followed by remodeling of hard and soft tissues, while socket shield technique has been proposed to prevent or minimize this remodeling. Socket shield accompanied with delayed implant placement is a novel technique that could be used when delayed implantation is selected; however, more scientific based evidence is required to recommend this technique as everyday clinical practice. Thus, the aim of this case series was to assess the clinical, radiographic, and esthetic outcomes of the delayed placed implants associated with previously prepared socket shield at 3–15 months follow-up after loading. The stability of the shield and the depth of soft tissue penetration palatal to the shield at reentry of 3–6 months were also assessed.

Cases presentation

Five case reports of socket shield with delayed implant placement were described in the study. The facial shields were prepared and simultaneously the sockets were grafted with mineralized allograft particles, then the implants were placed 3–6 months later. Periodontal probe was used to measure the depth of soft tissue penetration palatal to the shield at reentry. Clinical indices of bleeding index, plaque index, and probing depths were recorded. Radiographic evaluation to record the amount of marginal bone loss post-loading, esthetic assessment using modified pink esthetic score, and patient assessed outcomes were also evaluated at 3–15 months follow-up after loading. At 3–6 months reentry, all shields were stable with maintenance of the facial bone and with extreme hard tissue formation in the sockets. All five implants were successful and functional without any pain or inflammation, with optimal soft tissue health and esthetics, and with minimal radiographic marginal bone loss at the last follow-up visit (3–15 months after loading).

Conclusions

Within the limits of this study, socket shield technique with delayed implant placement could be a predictable minimally invasive option for cases requiring delayed implant placement; however, a long-term well-designed clinical proof is warranted.

Socket-shield technique for implant placement to stabilize the facial gingival and osseous architecture: A systematic review

The aim of the present study was to establish the efficacy of the socket-shield technique (SST) for the stabilization of the facial gingival and osseous architecture. An electronic search including the Cochrane databases, EBSCOhost, Medline/PubMed and Web of Science was performed. Articles related to SST for placing dental implants were included. Articles and abstracts not written in English were excluded. The initial literature search resulted in 113 articles related to questions raised. Hand searching of the journals related to implants and cross-referencing related to SST within the selected articles resulted in 1 more paper. Finally, 20 full texts and abstract of 1 article were included in the present systematic review: 11 case reports, 6 case series, 1 human randomized control trial (RCT), 1 technical report and 2 animal RCT. Recent modifications in SST, along with long follow-up studies with increased sample size, provided promising results. This systematic review still recommends that SST should not be used in routine clinical practise until a higher level of evidence established. Further RCT on SST are required to establish the clinical efficacy of this technique.