Comparative outcome of socket shield method and conventional immediate implant implantation with immediate temporization- a 10 years follow-up


  • Abdullah Al Mamun Khan Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, City Dental College, Dhaka, Bangladesh
  • Nasrin Parvin Zahan Banasree Dental and Implant Centre and German Dental and Implant Center, Dhaka, Bangladesh



Bone loss, Conventional implant, Crestal bone thickness, Pink esthetic score, Socket shield technique


Background: Dental implants are now regarded as an effective treatment option for replacing missing teeth. The objective was to evaluate the socket shield approach with immediate temporization to the conventional instantaneous implant with immediate temporization utilizing the parameters of horizontal and vertical dimensional bone loss, crestal bone thickness (CBT) and pink esthetic score (PES).

Methods: This prospective study was carried out at Banasree Dental and German Dental implant surgery centers from December 2010 to December 2020 where 74 patients who had non-restorable maxillary teeth in the esthetic region were conducted and evaluated for implant settlement. The allocated individuals were divided into two groups immediate implant with socket shield group (study group, n=22) and the conventional immediate implant placement group (control group, n=52). SPSS version 21.0 was used to analyze all of the data.

Results: Mean value of crestal bone thickness (CBT) at the pre-operative time was 1.31±0.2 in both groups but at the 6 months follow-up time it was 1.2±0.22 and 1.07±0.21, at the 24 months follow-up time it was 1.13±0.24 and 0.99±0.20 and at the 60 months follow-up time in was 1.05±0.27 and 0.79±0.15 and at the 120 months follow-up time it was 1.03±0.29 and 0.69±0.17 in the study and control group respectively. In the study group, the mean value of pink esthetic score was 11.45±1.6 at 6 months follow-up time, 12±0.89 at 24 months, 12.5±0.87 at the 60 months and 12.5±0.86 at the 120 months follow-up time whereas in the control group, it was 11±1.32, 10±1.52, 8.9±1.63 and 7.5±1.55, respectively.

Conclusions: The SST group revealed minimal reduction in CBT, horizontal and vertical bone loss and a superior PES compared to conventional immediate implant.


Fickl S, Zuhr O, Wachtel H, Stappert CFJ, Stein JM, Hürzeler MB. Dimensional changes of the alveolar ridge contour after different socket preservation techniques. J Clin Periodontol. 2008;35:906-13.

Schropp L, Wenzel A, Kostopoulos L, Karring T. Bone healing and soft tissue contour changes following single-tooth extraction: a clinical and radiographic 12-month prospective study. Int J Periodont Restor Dent. 2003;23:313-23.

Araujo MG, Lindhe J. Dimensional ridge alterations following tooth extraction. An experimental study in the dog. J Clin Periodontol. 2005;32:212-8.

Araújo MG, Sukekava F, Wennström JL, Lindhe J. Tissue modelling following implant placement in fresh extraction sockets. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2006;17(6):615-24.

Tarnow DP, Chu SJ, Salama MA, Stappert CF, Salama H, Garber DA, et al. Flapless postextraction socket implant placement in the esthetic zone: part 1. The effect of bone grafting and/or provisional restoration on facial-palatal ridge dimensional change- a retrospective cohort study. Int J Periodont Restor Dent. 2014;34(3):323-31.

Vignoletti F, Sanz M. Immediate implants at fresh extraction sockets: from myth to reality. Periodontology 2000. 2014;66:132-52.

Tonetti MS, Cortellini P, Graziani F, Cairo F, Lang NP, Abundo R, et al. Immediate versus delayed implant placement after anterior single tooth extraction: the timing randomized controlled clinical trial. J Clin Periodontol. 2017;44(2):215-24.

Esposito M, Grusovin MG, Polyzos IP, Felice P, Worthington HV. Timing of implant placement after tooth extraction: immediate, immediate-delayed or delayed implants? A Cochrane systematic review. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2010;3(3):189-205.

Lee EA, Gonzalez-Martin O, Fiorellini J. Lingualized flapless implant placement into fresh extraction sockets preserves buccal alveolar bone: a cone beam computed tomography study. Int J Periodont Restor Dent. 2014;34(1):61-8.

Anumala D, Haritha M, Sailaja S, Prasuna E, Sravanthi G, Reddy N. Effect of flap and flapless implant surgical techniques on soft and hard tissue profile in single-stage dental implants. J Orofac Sci. 2019;11(1):11-5.

Troiano G, Zhurakivska K, Lo Muzio L, Laino L, Cicciù M, Lo Russo L. Combination of bone graft and resorbable membrane for alveolar ridge preservation: A systematic review, meta‐analysis, and trial sequential analysis. J Periodontol. 2018;89(1):46-57.

Hürzeler MB, Zuhr O, Schupbach P, Rebele SF, Emmanouilidis N, Fickl S. The socket‐shield technique: a proof‐of‐principle report. J Clin Periodontol. 2010;37(9):855-62.

Gluckman H, Salama M, Du Toit J. A retrospective evaluation of 128 socket-shield cases in the esthetic zone and posterior sites: partial extraction therapy with up to 4 years follow-up. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2018;20(2):122-9.

Gluckman H, Nagy K, Du Toit J. Prosthetic management of implants placed with the socket-shield technique. J Prosthet Dent. 2019;121(4):581-5.

Furhauser R, Florescu D, Benesch T, Haas R, Mailath G, Watzek G. Evaluation of soft tissue around single-tooth implant crowns: the pink esthetic score. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2005;16(6):639-44.

Abd-Elrahman A, Shaheen M, Askar N, Atef M. Socket shield technique vs conventional immediate implant placement with immediate temporization. Randomized clinical trial. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2020;1-10.

Santhanakrishnan M, Subramanian V, Ramesh N, Kamaleeshwari R. Radiographic and esthetic evaluation following immediate implant placement with or without socket shield and delayed implant placement following socket preservation in the maxillary esthetic region- a randomized controlled clinical trial. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent. 2021;13:479-94.

Sun C, Zhao J, Liu Z, Tan L, Huang Y, Zhao L, et al. Comparing conventional flap‐less immediate implantation and socket‐shield technique for esthetic and clinical outcomes: a randomized clinical study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2020;31(2):181-91.

Kumar PR, Kher U. Shield the socket: Procedure, case report and classification. J Indian Soc Periodontol. 2018;22(3):266-72.

Barakat DA, Hassan RS, Eldibany RM. Evaluation of the socket shield technique for immediate implantation. Alex Dent J. 2017;42:155-61.

Gupta A, Rathee S, Agarwal J, Pachar RB. Measurement of crestal cortical bone thickness at implant site: a cone beam computed tomography study. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2017;18(9):785-9.

Cho YB, Moon SJ, Chung CH, Kim HJ. Resorption of labial bone in maxillary anterior implant. J Adv Prosthodont. 2011;3(2):85-9

Abadzhiev M, Nenkov P, Velcheva P. Conventional immediate implant placement and Immediate placement with Socket shield technique- which is better. Int J Clin Med Res. 2014;1(5):176-80.

Baumer D, Zuhr O, Rebele S, Hurzeler M. Socket shield technique for immediate implant placement - clinical, radiographic and volumetric data after 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017;28(11):1450-8.

Engelke W, Beltran V, Decco O, Valdivia-Gandur I, Navarro P, Fuentes R. Changes in morphology of alveolar buccal walls following atraumatic internal root fragmentation. Int J Morphol. 2015;33:491-6.

Chen C, Pan YH. Socket shield technique for ridge preservation: a case report. J Prosthodont Implantol. 2013;2(2):16-21.

Baumer D, Zuhr O, Rebele S, Schneider D, Schupbach P, Hurzeler M. The socket-shield technique: first histological, clinical, and volumetrical observations after separation of the buccal tooth segment- a pilot study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2015;17(1):71-82.




How to Cite

Khan, A. A. M., & Zahan , N. P. (2023). Comparative outcome of socket shield method and conventional immediate implant implantation with immediate temporization- a 10 years follow-up. International Journal of Research in Medical Sciences, 11(7), 2372–2377.



Original Research Articles