Kumar Payal Rajender, Vikram Jay, Kher Udatta, Tunkiwala Ali, Sawhney Hemant
MDS, Prosthodontics, Senior Resident, RML Government Hospital, New Delhi, India.
Professor, Department of Prosthodontics & Crown & Bridge, School of Dental Sciences, Sharda University, Greater Noida, India.
J Indian Soc Periodontol. 2021 Nov-Dec;25(6):510-517. doi: 10.4103/jisp.jisp_278_20. Epub 2021 Nov 1.
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.
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, = 15) and test group with immediate implant placement using SST (Group S, = 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.
Within the time frame of the study (15 days postplacement of definitive prosthesis), a statistically significant difference ( < 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.
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.
牙齿拔除不可避免地会导致周围软硬组织发生决定性变化,这是无可辩驳的。最近,牙槽窝保护技术(SST)已被用于使牙根颊侧三分之二保持完整地留在牙槽窝内。这种颊侧保护罩进一步保留了牙周膜 - 束状骨复合体,从而保留了颊侧软硬组织。本研究的目的是使用美学参数(粉色美学指数)和放射学参数对两种不同类型的无瓣和无植骨技术进行统计学比较分析。
总共选择了30个无法修复的牙/牙根残端(活髓或死髓),并随机分为两个不同的组:立即进行传统种植体植入(不使用SST)的对照组(C组,n = 15)和使用SST立即进行种植体植入的试验组(S组,n = 15)。所有位点均在椅旁即刻安装临时修复体。所有种植体在术后4个月用螺丝固位或粘结固位的修复体进行修复。每个对照组和试验组在两个不同时间段进行分析:临时修复体植入后15天和最终修复体植入后15天。使用粉色美学评分(PES)的五个参数进行美学分析,并使用数字化根尖片进行放射学分析。
在研究时间范围内(最终修复体植入后15天)观察到,两种技术的PES之间存在统计学显著差异(P < 0.05)。试验组S(平均值 = 9.07)的得分高于对照组C(平均值 = 6.87)。观察到试验组S的所有病例中颊侧骨得以保留,而对照组C的几乎所有病例中都出现了颊侧骨吸收。
在这项短期初步研究的局限性内,与传统无植骨技术相比,当考虑即刻种植体植入后的修复时,使用SST观察到了更好的软组织参数。