Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 15, 2026
Real-Time Dynamic Navigation System for the Precise Quad-Zygomatic Implant Placement in a Patient with a Severely Atrophic Maxilla
Published on: October 18, 2021
Clinical, radiographic, and esthetic outcomes of the socket shield technique versus conventional postextraction
Saverio Cosola1, Mohammadreza Asadi2, Massimo Natale3
1Postdoctoral Researcher, Department of Stomatology, Tuscan Stomatologic Institute, Foundation for Dental Clinic, Research and Continuing Education, Camaiore, Italy; Department of Dentistry, Saint Camillus International University of Health and Medical Sciences (UniCamillus), Rome, Italy; and Private practice, Pisa, Italy.
Statement Of Problem:
The socket shield technique (SST) has been proposed to preserve the buccal bone plate and peri-implant soft tissues during immediate implant placement, potentially improving esthetic outcomes. While its biological rationale has been well supported, comparative evidence with conventional protocols remains heterogeneous.
Purpose:
The purpose of this systematic review was to compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of SST and conventional immediate implant placement (CIP) by assessing implant survival, marginal bone loss (MBL), buccal bone thickness, pink esthetic score (PES), soft tissue changes, and complications.
Material And Methods:
A systematic review was conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines across 6 electronic databases up to July 2025. Comparative clinical studies with a minimum follow-up of 3 months evaluating SST versus CIP were included.
Results:
Eleven studies involving 423 implants were included. Implant survival rates exceeded 95% in both groups. SST showed significantly less buccal and crestal bone loss and consistently higher PES scores across short- and long-term follow-up. The technique improved peri-implant soft tissue contours and reduced midfacial recession. SST-related complications, such as mobility or exposure, were infrequent and mostly linked to surgical error or poor patient selection.
Conclusions:
SST offers better outcomes than CIP without compromising implant survival. However, it is technique-sensitive and demands careful execution. Digital workflows and guided shield preparation may enhance predictability, but further high-quality, long-term studies are needed to support clinical standardization.
