Cargando…

Pink esthetic and radiological scores around immediate implants placed in the esthetic zone – Socket-Shield Technique versus Immediate Conventional Technique: A Pilot Study

OBJECTIVE: It is irrefutable that the extraction of teeth inextricably results in definitive changes in the surrounding hard and soft tissues. Recently, Socket-Shield Technique (SST) has been used to keep the buccal two-third of the root intact in the socket. This buccal shield further preserves the...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kumar, Payal Rajender, Vikram, Jay, Kher, Udatta, Tunkiwala, Ali, Sawhney, Hemant
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8603788/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34898917
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jisp.jisp_278_20
_version_ 1784601826044149760
author Kumar, Payal Rajender
Vikram, Jay
Kher, Udatta
Tunkiwala, Ali
Sawhney, Hemant
author_facet Kumar, Payal Rajender
Vikram, Jay
Kher, Udatta
Tunkiwala, Ali
Sawhney, Hemant
author_sort Kumar, Payal Rajender
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: It is irrefutable that the extraction of teeth inextricably results in definitive changes in the surrounding hard and soft tissues. Recently, Socket-Shield Technique (SST) has been used to keep the buccal two-third of the root intact in the socket. This buccal shield further preserves the periodontium-bundle bone complex and hence preserves the buccal hard and soft tissue. The purpose of the study was to do a statistical comparative analysis of two different types of flapless and graftless techniques using the esthetic (Pink Esthetic Index) and radiological parameters. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of thirty nonrestorable tooth/root stumps (vital or nonvital) were selected and randomly allocated to two different groups: control group with immediate conventional implant placement (without SST) (Group C, n = 15) and test group with immediate implant placement using SST (Group S, n = 15). All of the sites received immediate chairside temporaries. All implants were restored either with screw- or cement-retained prostheses 4 months postoperative. Each control and test group was analyzed at two different durations: 15 days after placement of provisional and 15 days after placement of definitive prosthesis. Five parameters of Pink Esthetic Score (PES) were used for esthetic analysis, and digital periapical radiographs were used for radiographic analysis. RESULTS: Within the time frame of the study (15 days postplacement of definitive prosthesis), a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) was observed between PES of the two techniques. Test group S (mean = 9.07) showed better scores than control group C (mean = 6.87). It was observed that buccal bone was maintained in all the cases of test group S while there was loss of buccal bone in almost all the cases of control group C. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this short-term pilot study, better soft-tissue parameters were observed with SST as compared to a conventional graftless technique whenever a restoration on immediate implant placement is considered.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8603788
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-86037882021-12-10 Pink esthetic and radiological scores around immediate implants placed in the esthetic zone – Socket-Shield Technique versus Immediate Conventional Technique: A Pilot Study Kumar, Payal Rajender Vikram, Jay Kher, Udatta Tunkiwala, Ali Sawhney, Hemant J Indian Soc Periodontol Original Article OBJECTIVE: It is irrefutable that the extraction of teeth inextricably results in definitive changes in the surrounding hard and soft tissues. Recently, Socket-Shield Technique (SST) has been used to keep the buccal two-third of the root intact in the socket. This buccal shield further preserves the periodontium-bundle bone complex and hence preserves the buccal hard and soft tissue. The purpose of the study was to do a statistical comparative analysis of two different types of flapless and graftless techniques using the esthetic (Pink Esthetic Index) and radiological parameters. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of thirty nonrestorable tooth/root stumps (vital or nonvital) were selected and randomly allocated to two different groups: control group with immediate conventional implant placement (without SST) (Group C, n = 15) and test group with immediate implant placement using SST (Group S, n = 15). All of the sites received immediate chairside temporaries. All implants were restored either with screw- or cement-retained prostheses 4 months postoperative. Each control and test group was analyzed at two different durations: 15 days after placement of provisional and 15 days after placement of definitive prosthesis. Five parameters of Pink Esthetic Score (PES) were used for esthetic analysis, and digital periapical radiographs were used for radiographic analysis. RESULTS: Within the time frame of the study (15 days postplacement of definitive prosthesis), a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) was observed between PES of the two techniques. Test group S (mean = 9.07) showed better scores than control group C (mean = 6.87). It was observed that buccal bone was maintained in all the cases of test group S while there was loss of buccal bone in almost all the cases of control group C. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this short-term pilot study, better soft-tissue parameters were observed with SST as compared to a conventional graftless technique whenever a restoration on immediate implant placement is considered. Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2021 2021-11-01 /pmc/articles/PMC8603788/ /pubmed/34898917 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jisp.jisp_278_20 Text en Copyright: © 2021 Indian Society of Periodontology https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle Original Article
Kumar, Payal Rajender
Vikram, Jay
Kher, Udatta
Tunkiwala, Ali
Sawhney, Hemant
Pink esthetic and radiological scores around immediate implants placed in the esthetic zone – Socket-Shield Technique versus Immediate Conventional Technique: A Pilot Study
title Pink esthetic and radiological scores around immediate implants placed in the esthetic zone – Socket-Shield Technique versus Immediate Conventional Technique: A Pilot Study
title_full Pink esthetic and radiological scores around immediate implants placed in the esthetic zone – Socket-Shield Technique versus Immediate Conventional Technique: A Pilot Study
title_fullStr Pink esthetic and radiological scores around immediate implants placed in the esthetic zone – Socket-Shield Technique versus Immediate Conventional Technique: A Pilot Study
title_full_unstemmed Pink esthetic and radiological scores around immediate implants placed in the esthetic zone – Socket-Shield Technique versus Immediate Conventional Technique: A Pilot Study
title_short Pink esthetic and radiological scores around immediate implants placed in the esthetic zone – Socket-Shield Technique versus Immediate Conventional Technique: A Pilot Study
title_sort pink esthetic and radiological scores around immediate implants placed in the esthetic zone – socket-shield technique versus immediate conventional technique: a pilot study
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8603788/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34898917
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jisp.jisp_278_20
work_keys_str_mv AT kumarpayalrajender pinkestheticandradiologicalscoresaroundimmediateimplantsplacedintheestheticzonesocketshieldtechniqueversusimmediateconventionaltechniqueapilotstudy
AT vikramjay pinkestheticandradiologicalscoresaroundimmediateimplantsplacedintheestheticzonesocketshieldtechniqueversusimmediateconventionaltechniqueapilotstudy
AT kherudatta pinkestheticandradiologicalscoresaroundimmediateimplantsplacedintheestheticzonesocketshieldtechniqueversusimmediateconventionaltechniqueapilotstudy
AT tunkiwalaali pinkestheticandradiologicalscoresaroundimmediateimplantsplacedintheestheticzonesocketshieldtechniqueversusimmediateconventionaltechniqueapilotstudy
AT sawhneyhemant pinkestheticandradiologicalscoresaroundimmediateimplantsplacedintheestheticzonesocketshieldtechniqueversusimmediateconventionaltechniqueapilotstudy