L-PRF Versus Sticky Bone Grafting of the Jumping Gap in AI-assisted Computer-Guided Socket Shield Immediate Implantation

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 .