An Evaluation of the Relationship Between Peri-implant Soft Tissue Biotype and the Severity of Peri-implantitis: A Cross-Sectional Study

İşler, Sıla Çağrı; Uraz, Ahu; Kaymaz, Özlem; Çetiner, Deniz

doi:10.11607/jomi.6958

Cited by 22 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Considering that the lack of keratinized mucosa makes a site more susceptible to peri‐implantitis, an apically positioned flap with a free gingival graft is the gold standard for increasing the band of keratinized mucosa . Soft tissue substitutions could also be utilized, as they increased patient satisfaction by reducing the treatment duration and postoperative morbidity (Figure ).…”

Section: Factors That Predispose Implants To Peri‐implantitis and Prmentioning

confidence: 99%

Breaking the wave of peri‐implantitis

Wang

2020

Periodontology 2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Peri‐implant diseases are prevalent with a weighted mean prevalence rate of 43% across Europe and 22% across South and North America. Although the main etiologic agent is bacterial biofilm, a myriad of factors influence the initiation and progression of the disease. Unfortunately, the treatment of peri‐implant diseases is at best favorable in the short term with a high rate of persistent inflammation and recurrence. Therefore, it is sensible to consider and control all potential factors that may predispose an implant to peri‐implant tissue inflammation in an attempt to avoid the disease. This paper reviews recent evidence on factors that may predispose implants to peri‐implantitis and measures that can be taken to prevent it.

show abstract

Section: Factors That Predispose Implants To Peri‐implantitis and Prmentioning

confidence: 99%

Breaking the wave of peri‐implantitis

Wang

2020

Periodontology 2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The concept of gingival and periodontal phenotypes was conceptualized as a result of clinical observation of changes in buccal KGW and keratinized tissue thickness (KTT) and includes the shape of teeth and the morphologic features of the gingiva and periodontium . Gingival or periodontal disease may develop more frequently in patients with thin gingival phenotypes; the thin phenotype increases the severity of peri‐implantitis, and in implant restoration, the thick phenotype is important in achieving a successful aesthetic outcome for immediate restoration of a single‐tooth implant and root‐coverage surgery . Studies have reported that the presence of the thin tissue phenotype in the recipient region has a negative effect that increases the shrinkage rate, and the periodontal phenotype of adjacent teeth has no effect on the change in graft volume in autogenous bone graft applications …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of different gingival phenotypes on dimensional stability of free gingival graft: A comparative 6‐month clinical study

Akcan

Güler²,

Hatipoğlu³

2019

Journal of Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The aim of this study is to compare the effect of mesial and distal adjacent gingival phenotypes of the tooth or teeth region of free gingival graft (FGG) on the shrinkage ratio of graft at 6 months postoperatively.Methods: Thirty-one patients with inadequate keratinized gingival width (KGW) around mandibular incisors were included in this study. The phenotype of the mesial and distal terminal teeth was evaluated by the probe transparency method and keratinized gingival thickness measurements; study groups were divided as thick and thin phenotype. The plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), probing depth (PD), clinical attachment level (CAL) and recession height (GRH), recession width (GRW) and KGW measurements were recorded at baseline and sixth month. Vertical dimension of graft (VDG), horizontal dimension of graft (HDG), recipient area horizontal width (RAHW), recipient area vertical depth (RAVD) were recorded during surgery. The shrinkage ratio was calculated with a Java-based analysis program. Results:There was no significant difference in the clinical and surgical measurements between the groups. KGW mean values for both of adjacent teeth increased at 6th month compared to baseline but there was no difference between the groups at 6 months. GRH value has decreased significantly in thick phenotype group at the 6th month. The shrinkage ratio was found 23.14 ± 12.21% and 17.76 ± 11.05% in the thin and thick phenotype group, respectively. The difference between the groups was not statistically significant (p = 0.210). Conclusion:The phenotype of the adjacent teeth has a similar impact on FGG shrinkage ratio at the sixth month. Thick phenotype of adjacent teeth seems to be more supportive for root coverage.

show abstract

“…75 In these situations or in patients who present a high risk of recession soft tissue, augmentation is generally indicated. 9 The absence of keratinized mucosa or even a thin peri-implant biotype was associated with periimplantitis, 76 which is a plaque-associated disease around dental implant tissues that generally exhibits greater recession after treatment. To prevent further recession, soft tissue augmentation may also be performed in conjunction with peri-implantitis treatment.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Treatment of peri-implant soft tissue defects: a narrative review

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Soft tissue defects around dental implants, such as papilla or volume loss, peri-implant recession and alterations of the ridge color and/or texture, lead to esthetic and functional complaints. Treatments of these defects in implants are more demanding than in teeth because peri-implant tissue exhibits different anatomical and histological characteristics. This narrative review discusses the proposed treatments for soft tissue defects around implants in the current literature. Several clinical and pre-clinical studies addressed methods to augment the quantity of the peri-implant keratinized mucosa. Autogenous grafts performed better than soft tissue substitutes in the treatment of soft tissue defects, but there is no clinical consensus on the more appropriate donor area for connective tissue grafts. Treatment for facial volume loss, alterations on the mucosa color or texture and shallow peri-implant recessions are more predictable than deep recessions and sites that present loss of papilla. Correction of peri-implant soft tissue defects may be challenging, especially in areas that exhibit larger defects and interproximal loss. Therefore, the regeneration of soft and hard tissues during implant treatment is important to prevent the occurrence of these alterations.

show abstract

An Evaluation of the Relationship Between Peri-implant Soft Tissue Biotype and the Severity of Peri-implantitis: A Cross-Sectional Study

Cited by 22 publications

References 16 publications

Breaking the wave of peri‐implantitis

Breaking the wave of peri‐implantitis

The effect of different gingival phenotypes on dimensional stability of free gingival graft: A comparative 6‐month clinical study

Treatment of peri-implant soft tissue defects: a narrative review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About