Table 3. Clinical parameters (mean ± standard deviation) of marginal bone loss, pink esthetic score, and buccal bone plate resorption of implants placed with the SST versus implants placed with other techniques in randomized controlled trials.
| Authors and year | SST implants | Control group and technique | Marginal bone loss (mm) | Pink esthetic score | Buccal bone plate resorption (mm) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bramanti et al., 2018 [22] | 20 | Conventional immediate implant | SST: 0.60±0.06 | SST: 12.15±0.87 | Not evaluated |
| CG: 1.11±0.13 | CG: 10.3±1.59 | ||||
| Sun et al., 2020 [23] | 15 | Conventional immediate flap-less approach | SST: 0.28±0.22 (at 6 months) | SST: 12.07±1.62 | Not evaluated |
| CG: 0.87±0.29 (at 6 month) | CG: 11.33±1.76 | ||||
| Tiwari et.al., 2019 [24] | 8 | Conventional immediate implant | Not evaluated | Not evaluated | SST: 0.03±0.02 |
| CG: 0.18±0.013 | |||||
| Barakat et al., 2017 [25] | 10 | Conventional immediate implant | SST: 0.44±0.24 | Not evaluated | SST: 0.10±0.03 |
| CG: 1.61±0.78 | CG: 0.34±0.11 | ||||
| Atef et al., 2020 [26] | 21 | Conventional Immediate implant filling the buccal gap with xenograft | SST: 0.36±0.62 | SST: 12.12±0.64 | SST: 0.290±0.34 |
| CG: 0.71±1.02 | CG: 11.86±0.35 | CG: 1.45±0.72 | |||
| Abd-Elrahman et al., 2020 [27] | 20 | Conventional Immediate implant | SST: 0.31 | SST: 12±1.2 | SST: 0.15 |
| CG: 0.7 | CG: 8.85±1.81 | CG: 0.3 | |||
| Santhanakrishnan et al., 2021 [28] | 25 | I CG Conventional immediate implant placement | Not evaluated | SST: 12.1±1.6 | SST: 0.05±0.02 |
| II CG Delayed implant Placement | I CG: 12.2±1.9 | I CG: 0.4±0.01 | |||
| II CG: 10.9±1.5 | II CG: 0.2±0.2 |
Bold-faced values are statistically significant difference between groups.
SST: socket shield technique; CG: control group; SS: statistically significant difference.