RESUMEN
Alveolar bone resorption is a natural occurrence following tooth extraction, complicating the process of prosthetic rehabilitation with implants. Techniques such as socket preservation, atraumatic extraction, and immediate implant placement are employed to reduce the dimensional changes associated with extraction. The socket shield technique (SST) is effective in preserving the alveolar ridge's contour, enhancing the aesthetic results of rehabilitation by maintaining the integrity of the bundle bone complex even when the buccal bone is less than 1mm. This case report presents a 23-year-old female patient with a fractured upper central incisor. The socket shield technique was chosen based on the clinical findings from the cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scan. Immediate temporization was provided to preserve soft tissue integration. A comparison of the initial and subsequent cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans, along with clinical observations, suggests that the socket shield technique is a viable method for preserving both hard and soft tissue structures in the anterior dental region, thereby improving aesthetic outcomes.
RESUMEN
Background Conventionally, undersized osteotomies were used to increase initial bone-to-implant contact to achieve primary stability in implantology. This is particularly evident in regions with low bone density. The potential for severe bone compression and ischemia poses a challenge to secondary stability. Instead, lateral bone compaction is caused by the idea of osseodensification. Research on the potential benefits of this method for narrow ridges is lacking. This study aimed to determine if the osseodensification drilling technique affects primary stability and how much the alveolar ridge expands following implant site preparation. Methodology A total of 30 participants aged 20 to 80 years were included in this randomized controlled clinical investigation. Each participant was randomly assigned to one of the following two groups: one that received standard drill preparation, and another that received osseodensification drill preparation. Implant stability using implant stability quotient values, crest width, apical width (5 mm from crest), and bone density were assessed both before and after six months using cone-beam computed tomography. Results Osseodensification impacted the width at the apex (5 mm from the crest) and radiographic bone density, adding to the quality, but did not affect implant stability and crestal width after osseointegration. The mean difference in conventional and osseodensification groups was 0.46 and 0.68 mm, respectively, concerning the crestal width. Moreover, the mean difference was 0.74 and 0.58 mm for conventional and osseodensification groups, respectively, concerning the width at the apex (5 mm from the crest). Conclusions This study demonstrates that the osseodensification process increased both the radiographic bone density and the width at the apex, demonstrating that osseodensification drilling techniques allow for the placement of implants with larger diameters in narrow alveolar ridges.