PDF herunterladen
Open Access
CC BY 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2025; 19(04): 882-892
DOI: 10.1055/s-0045-1806862
Review Article

The Influence of Different Implant Placement Techniques on Alveolar Ridge Preservation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Authors

  • Nguyen Phu Thang

    1   Department of Oral Surgery, School of Dentistry, Hanoi Medical University, Hanoi, Vietnam

  • Nguyen Thi Khanh Ly

    1   Department of Oral Surgery, School of Dentistry, Hanoi Medical University, Hanoi, Vietnam

  • Do Thi Thanh Toan

    2   Department of Medical Statistics and Informatics, Institute for Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Hanoi Medical University, Hanoi, Vietnam

  • Nguyen Thu Tra

    3   Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Hanoi Medical University, Hanoi, Vietnam

  • Nguyen Minh Duc

    1   Department of Oral Surgery, School of Dentistry, Hanoi Medical University, Hanoi, Vietnam
    4   Division of Research and Treatment for Oral Maxillofacial Congenital Anomalies, Aichi Gakuin University, Nagoya, Japan
Weitere Informationen
Auch verfügbar auf
  Lizenzen und Reprints
Preview

Abstract

This systematic review and meta-analysis compares the effectiveness of three implant placement techniques: socket shield technique (SST), conventional immediate implant placement (CIIP), and delayed implant placement (DIP) in alveolar ridge preservation, implant survival rates, and esthetics. A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library, covering studies from 2012 to 2022. Inclusion criteria targeted clinical studies with a minimum follow-up of 6 months. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB-2 and ROBINS-I tools, and meta-analyses were performed using random-effects models. Sixteen studies met the inclusion criteria. SST demonstrated significantly better preservation of buccal bone thickness (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 2.94, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.46–4.42, p < 0.001) and height (SMD = 4.47, 95% CI: 1.96–6.98, p < 0.001) compared with CIIP. SST also resulted in higher pink esthetic scores (SMD = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.36–1.64, p = 0.002). No significant differences were found between CIIP and DIP for marginal bone loss (SMD = 0.15, 95% CI: −0.26 to 0.55, p = 0.471). However, DIP showed a lower implant failure rate than CIIP (odds ratio = 3.49, 95% CI: 1.26–9.66, p = 0.016). SST offers significant benefits in preserving alveolar bone and improving esthetic outcomes, while DIP appears to reduce implant failure risk. Further standardized studies are needed to confirm these findings and refine clinical guidelines.

Keywords

alveolar bone - socket shield - immediate implant placement


Publikationsverlauf

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
23. April 2025

© 2025. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India