the rationale of the current study is to address a focused and clinically relevant gap in socket shield therapy: which biologic modality best supports healing of the shield-implant gap when SST is performed under a standardized, digitally guided workflow. The study will compare three shield-implant gap filling modalities: (i) L-PRF alone (without membrane), (ii) sticky tooth (autogenous dentin graft +i- PRF), and (iii) sticky bone (particulate graft + i- PRF) under AI-assisted, patient-specific guided implant placement based on IOS/CBCT superimposition, with CBCT follow-up at immediate, 3 months, and 6 months. The working hypothesis is that biologically active, cohesive composites (sticky tooth and sticky bone) will provide superior hard- and soft-tissue dimensional stability compared with PRF alone by improving space maintenance and early wound stability in the shield-implant gap . The null hypothesis is that there will be no statistically significant differences between the three modalities in radiographic and digitally assessed clinical outcomes over the 6-month follow-up period .
Medically healthy patients according to the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status classification system; only patients belonging to ASA I and ASA II categories will be included in this study.
Age > 18 years.
Patients presenting with one non-restorable hopeless anterior tooth due to extensive caries, cervical/root fracture, vertical or oblique root fracture, multiple failed endodontic treatments, or root resorption.
Sufficient apical/palatal bone to obtain primary implant stability.
Patients belonging to ASA III, ASA IV and ASA V will be excluded.
Vertical root fracture involving the labial aspect of the root planned to be retained as the facial shield.
Horizontal root fracture that is too far apically located.
Presence of acute (active) periapical infection.