# The Effect of Different Socket Types on Implant Therapy While Using Flapless Ridge Preservation
## 4 Discussion  
### Major Findings  
In this study, we investigated the effect of socket morphology on dental implant therapy with flapless ridge preservation. The implant survival rate was not affected by socket morphology in this study. However, the total treatment time was longer in socket types associated with periodontitis. Significantly longer treatment time was required in  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Unvariable Linear Model**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Multivariable Linear Model**} \\ \cline{3-5}  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Estimated Difference**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\(p\)**-Value**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{
\begin{tabular}{c} **Estimated Difference** \\ **(95\% CI)** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\(p\)**-Value**} \\ \hline Age at dental implant (year) & 0.05 (\(-\)0.04, 0.13) & 0.304 & & \\ Age at extraction (year) & 0.04 (\(-\)0.04, 0.13) & 0.332 & & \\ Female & \(-\)0.60 (\(-\)2.42, 1.23) & 0.519 & & \\ Sex & Male & reference & & \\ Smoking & Former smoker & 0.00 (\(-\)2.04, 2.03) & 0.997 & & \\  & Non-smoker & reference & & & \\  & DM & 1.71 (\(-\)2.69, 6.10) & 0.442 & & \\ Systemic diseases & Osteoporosis & 0.38 (\(-\)5.71, 6.47) & 0.901 & & \\  & Other diseases & 1.12 (\(-\)0.72, 2.97) & 0.229 & & \\  & NP & reference & & & \\  & UM & 4.72 (2.02, 7.41) & 0.001 * & 4.06 (1.43, 6.69) & 0.003 * \\  & non-UM & 6.06 (3.51, 8.61) & \textless{}0.001 * & 5.82 (3.36, 8.27) & \textless{}0.001 * \\ Tooth site & LM & 1.18 (\(-\)1.41, 3.76) & 0.368 & 1.12 (\(-\)1.37, 3.60) & 0.374 \\  & non-LM & reference & & & reference \\  & D1 & \(-\)2.38 (\(-\)8.17, 3.42) & 0.417 & & \\ Bone density & D2-D3 & \(-\)2.77 (\(-\)4.65, \(-\)0.89) & 0.004 * & & \\  & D4 & reference & & & \\ Bone re-grafting & Yes & \(-\)0.96 (\(-\)2.91, 0.98) & 0.327 & & \\  & No & reference & & & \\  & A & reference & & & \\ Materials and methods & B1 & \(-\)0.08 (\(-\)3.05, 2.89) & 0.956 & & \\  & B2 & \(-\)1.77 (\(-\)4.89, 1.36) & 0.265 & & \\ Extraction aetiology & Periodontitis & 2.63 (0.94, 4.31) & 0.003 * & 2.08 (0.61, 3.54): & 0.006 * \\  & Non-periodontitis & reference & & & reference \\  & \textless{}20 N & reference & & & \\ Primary stability & 20-35 N & \(-\)2.14 (\(-\)5.07, 0.80) & 0.151 & & \\  & \textgreater{}35 N & \(-\)2.86 (\(-\)5.49, \(-\)0.24) & 0.033 * & & \\  & I & reference & & & \\ Socket classification & II & 0.94 (\(-\)1.85, 3.72) & 0.506 & & \\  & III & 3.09 (0.43, 5.76) & 0.024 * & & \\  & IV & 1.50 (\(-\)2.57, 5.57) & 0.466 & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 5: The independent factors influencing total treatment time.  
Class II and Class III sockets than in Class I sockets, in the maxilla. However, there was no significant difference in total treatment time among the different socket classes in the mandible. Therefore, total treatment time may be affected by several factors unrelated to treatment techniques, including patient factors or delay in final prosthesis placement. However, socket characteristics may affect the total treatment time indirectly, through its effect on primary stability and osseointegration time.