Noha Ghallab

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the ridge alterations and esthetic outcome 1 year after immediate implant placement using the dual-zone (DZ) technique versus the bone shielding concept in patients with intact thin-walled sockets in the esthetic zone.

MATERIAL AND METHODS: This randomized clinical trial included 26 patients with nonrestorable maxillary teeth in the esthetic zone who were randomly assigned to two groups (n = 13 each) to receive immediate implants using either the bone shielding concept or DZ. Definitive restorations were delivered after 2 months. Pink esthetic scores (PESs), vertical soft tissue alterations, and bucco-palatal ridge dimensional changes were measured and assessed using intra-oral digital scans at baseline and 1 year post-procedure. Labial bone thickness was measured using cone beam computed tomography scans at baseline and after 1 year.

RESULTS: The bone shielding group provided bucco-palatal ridge thickness stability after 1 year (9.43 mm) compared to baseline values (9.82 mm), while DZ showed a significant loss in the bucco-palatal ridge thickness after 1 year (7.83) compared to baseline values (9.49). No significant difference was reported in the baseline bucco-palatal ridge thickness between the two groups (p = 0.6). After 1 year, the bone shielding group demonstrated 0.38 mm ridge shrinkage which was statistically significant (p = 0.0002) compared to 1.67 mm ridge shrinkage in the DZ group. In addition, the average total PES in the bone shielding group was 12.04 versus 10.28 in the DZ group. No significant difference was reported in the mesial papilla length between the DZ and the bone shielding group after 1 year (p > 0.05). However, the midfacial gingival margin (p = 0.026) and distal papilla were significantly higher in the DZ group (p = 0.0025). There was no significant difference in the mean ± SD mm bone gain at the apical level between the two studied groups after 1 year (p = 0.06) showing 0.85 ± 0.23 and 0.64 ± 0.32 mm, respectively. However, the bone shielding concept showed a statistically significant more bone gain mm (p < 0.001) at the (0.56 ± 0.43) and crestal (0.03 ± 0.8) levels after 1 year compared to DZ which revealed 0.18 ± 0.5 and 0.38 ± 0.29 mm bone loss, respectively.

CONCLUSION: The bone shielding concept might offer a reliable alternative for restoring thin-walled sockets by minimizing postextraction ridge dimensional alterations effect following immediate implant placement in the esthetic zone. Nevertheless, the study suffers from confounding bias since there are two systematic differences between the groups, the barrier membrane type, and the level of bone filling. "This clinical trial was not registered prior to participant recruitment and randomization."

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT05381467.

PURPOSE: This randomized controlled clinical trial compared soft tissue changes following a novel vestibular atraumatic extraction technique (test group) versus the conventional incisal atraumatic extraction approach (control group) while implementing the vestibular socket therapy for immediate implant placement.

METHODS: Thirty patients with hopeless maxillary anterior teeth requiring atraumatic extraction were randomly assigned into two equal groups to receive either test or control. Vertical soft tissue alterations in mm were measured at baseline and 12 months post-restoration using intraoral digital scans at three reference points, distal papilla, mid-facial gingival margin, and mesial papilla, as well as pink esthetic scores (PESs) after 12 months.

RESULTS: Vestibular extraction technique showed significant soft tissue improvement and creeping when compared to incisal extraction (P < 0.05). The test group showed soft tissue measurements with a mean (± SD) of 0.26 (± 0.58), 0.39 (± 0.64), and 0.05 (± 0.37) mm for the mesial papilla, mid-facial gingival margin, and distal papilla respectively. While the incisal extraction technique demonstrated gingival recession at the distal papilla, mid-facial gingival margin, and mesial papilla of - 0.37 (± 0.54) mm, - 0.32 (± 0.68) mm, and - 0.39 (± 0.59) mm respectively. The overall PESs after 12 months were 12.67 (± 1.59) in vestibular extraction group, while incisal extraction group was 11.40 (± 1.40), with significant difference between them (P = 0.03).

CONCLUSION: This investigation suggests that both studied techniques were successful in the atraumatic extraction of hopeless severely damaged teeth. The novel vestibular extraction technique might be considered an alternative reliable atraumatic extraction approach compared to the conventional incisal extraction when performing the vestibular socket protocol for immediate implant placement with soft tissue enhancement.