Evaluation of soft tissue and labial plate of bone stability with immediate implant in direct contact versus gap with socket shield: A randomized clinical trial with 1 year follow‐up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In the anterior region, the resorption of the buccal plate of bone after tooth extraction leads to contraction of the overlying soft tissues, resulting in an esthetic problem. In the socket shield technique, the buccal root section of the tooth is maintained, to preserve the buccal bone for immediate implant placement. The aim of this randomized clinical trial was to investigate the effect of leaving a gap or not between implant and retained root fragment on bone dimensions and soft tissue esthetics. METHODS: This was a two armed parallel group randomized clinical trial with allocation ratio 1:1. Patients were eligible in case they needed immediate implant replacing teeth in esthetic zone with sufficient buccal bone support. CBCT was performed immediately after the intervention and 12 months later. RESULTS: Forty six patients (26 females and 20 males) were enrolled in the study with 23 of them placed in contact with shield and 23 were placed palatal leaving a gap to graft with a xenograft. After 12 months, excellent soft tissue stability was reported (mean pink esthetic score at placement group A: 12.00 ± 1.60 after 12 months 12.90 ± 1.69, group B 12.62 ± 2.07 and after 12 months 12.38 ± 2.20) Using both surgical techniques. Radiographic crestal bone level changes mean for group A was -0.26 ± 0.52 and for group B -0.34 ± 0.31. There was a strong positive correlation between clinical and radiographic bone width values which was statistically significant (r = 0.782, p < 0.001). Width and thickness of keratinized gingiva showed no significant difference between values measured in both groups. Nonsignificant difference between studied groups according to the labial plate of bone clinical and radiographic changes after immediate implantation. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study, the present data seem to support that the clinical outcome of the socket shield technique with immediate implant placement placed in contact or leaving a gap gave excellent esthetic results.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".