An interventional study of Dental implant placement after tooth extraction in Dental Implant, Tooth Extraction and Bone Resorption, sponsored by Aula Dental Avanzada. Completed at 1 site in Spain. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-11-04.
Sponsored by Aula Dental Avanzada · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment
The aim is to comparatively evaluate the soft tissue volume changes that occur after tooth extraction and immediate dental implant placement using two different surgical techniques.
These techniques are: the Socket-Shield technique and conventional immediate placement.
The null hypothesis is that the Socket-Shield technique better maintains soft tissue volume after partial tooth extraction and immediate implant placement compared to the conventional technique.
From a sample of 20 patients, they will be divided into groups of 10 and will be randomized using the random.org program.
The soft tissue volume will be digitally recorded by intraoral scanning before tooth extraction and 6 months later.
The soft tissue dimensional changes produced will be digitally evaluated and statistically analyzed.
After tooth extraction, the supporting tissues, bone and mucosa will undergo a loss of volume associated with the loss of the cementum-periodontal ligament-bone attachment complex.
This alteration in volume can affect aesthetic results, especially when the tooth involves the anterior area, where the alveolar bone is narrower.
To compensate for the lost volume loss, some authors promote delayed implant placement, which would facilitate soft tissue management after healing.
The conventional immediate implant placement technique proposes the use of bone regeneration biomaterials in the space between the implant wall and the residual vestibular bone. The aim of this technique is to compensate for this bone resorption, thus improving the aesthetic results. In the same sense of compensating for the resorption that will occur, some authors recommend the use of soft tissue grafts in the same operative act of extraction and placement of the immediate implant.
Some years ago, some authors presented the technique of partial extraction of the tooth as an alternative to the conventional technique of immediate implant placement after extraction with the aim of avoiding or minimising this resorption. The technique consists of leaving a piece of tooth (shield) inserted in the vestibular alveolar bone area so that the resorption process is slowed down.
The presence of bone between the dentine wall of the tooth fragment and the implant has been demonstrated in both animal and ex-vivo histological studies.
From a clinical point of view, the Socket-Shield or partial extraction technique has been shown to maintain the vestibular volume in post-extraction implants placed using this technique in both posterior and anterior areas with high aesthetic compromise, maintaining adequate clinical values and patient satisfaction.
On the other hand, a 2015 systematic review, comparing immediate and delayed implantation techniques, reports no significant differences between the two, especially at the soft tissue level, although it mentions a lack of quality in the RCTs analysed.
A 2017 randomized clinical trial compared the conventional immediate implant placement technique with the delayed or early implantation technique, advising against the former when aesthetics were compromised and limiting it to well-selected cases.
In contrast, another more recent randomized clinical trial found no aesthetic, clinical or radiographic differences between the two techniques, and reported similar levels of patient satisfaction.
Likewise, a higher rate of early failure has been found in the immediate implantation technique, mentioning the lack of randomised clinical studies comparing both techniques, especially in terms of soft tissue volume changes.
A recent randomised clinical study comparing the Socket-Shield technique with the conventional implant placement technique found better levels of marginal bone and pink aesthetic assessment in the former, considering it a safe and feasible technique in the anterior sector.
Given the lack of evidence in the literature, there is a palpable need for clinical studies to compare the best technique and/or timing of implant placement after tooth extraction.
167 studies on the registry are indexed under Bone Resorption; 28 are open to participants now.
This study's enrollment of 20 is below the median of 24 across 146 interventional studies indexed under Bone Resorption.
Browse Bone Resorption studies →Aula Dental Avanzada is the lead sponsor of 14 studies on the registry; 5 are open to participants now.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.
Exclusion Criteria:
Underlined terms in the criteria open these too. Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.
A reason a treatment, test or procedure should not be given to a particular person, such as an allergy, another illness or a medicine they take.
Contraindication
A reason a treatment, test or procedure should not be given to a particular person, such as an allergy, another illness or a medicine they take.
Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.
Patients who will receive immediate implant placement using the Socket-Shield Technique.
Procedure: Dental implant placement after tooth extraction
Patients who will receive immediate implant placement using bone biomaterials to fill the gap after complete extraction of the tooth.
Procedure: Dental implant placement after tooth extraction
Immediate implant placement after partial or complete tooth extraction.
Also known as: Implant surgery
Soft tissue volume
Soft tissue volume changes after tooth extraction
Time frame: 6 months
Surgery pain perception by Numerical Rating Scale
Pain perception by the patient during surgical procedure, being 0 no pain at all, 1-3 mild discomfort, 4-7 moderate pain and 7-10 intense pain.
Time frame: Just after surgery
Surgery satisfaction of the patient by Numerical Rating Scale
Patients satisfaction after surgery, being 0 not satisfied at all, and 10 very satisfied
Time frame: Just after surgery
General satisfaction of the patient by Numerical Rating Scale
Patients general satisfaction 6 months after the beginning of treatment, being 0 not satisfied at all, and 10 very satisfied
Time frame: 6 months after the beginning of treatment
Esthetic satisfaction of the patient by Numerical Rating Scale
Patients esthetic satisfaction 3 months after crown placement, being 0 not satisfied at all, and 10 very satisfied
Time frame: 3 months after after crown placement
Function satisfaction of the patient by Numerical Rating Scale
Patients function satisfaction 3 months after crown placement, being 0 not satisfied at all, and 10 very satisfied
Time frame: 3 months after after crown placement
Plan to share: No — No plan to share with other researches.
From the registry record's own update history. This site started tracking changes on Sep 25, 2026; for anything earlier, see the record history on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
This study is completed, as verified in Nov 2026. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
Aula Dental Avanzada