Buccolingual Implant Position and Vertical Abutment Finish Line Geometry

Scutellà, Fabio; Weinstein, Tommaso; Lazzara, Richard J.; Testori, Tiziano

doi:10.1097/id.0000000000000235

Cited by 7 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The rules commonly applied to plan the ideal implant position are extrapolated from a few prospective studies and case series 42–47 and include four spatial parameters. The angulation and bucco‐lingual position are determined in relation to the future restoration.…”

Section: Soft Tissue Complications Caused By Treatment Errors That Oc...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The angulation and bucco‐lingual position are determined in relation to the future restoration. Ideally, the projection of the longitudinal implant axis should be slightly palatal to the incisal edge of the future restoration 46,47 . The mesio‐distal position 42,43 should ensure a safe distance of at least 1.5 mm between the implant and the adjacent teeth and 3 to 4 mm between the implants.…”

Section: Soft Tissue Complications Caused By Treatment Errors That Oc...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The observed angular deviation values were generally greater in free-handed implant placement ( 38 This means that the main predisposing factor for peri-implant dehiscence occurrences is related to incorrect implant positioning in any of the three dimensions. 40,41 The rules commonly applied to plan the ideal implant position are extrapolated from a few prospective studies and case series [42][43][44][45][46][47] and include four spatial parameters. The angulation and buccolingual position are determined in relation to the future restoration.…”

Section: Sof T Tissue Complic Ations C Aus Ed By Tre Atment Error S T...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Ideally, the projection of the longitudinal implant axis should be slightly palatal to the incisal edge of the future restoration. 46,47 The volume. 40,48 The apico-coronal position 42,[44][45][46] in aesthetic areas should be established in relation to the position of the gingival margin of adjacent teeth.…”

Section: Sof T Tissue Complic Ations C Aus Ed By Tre Atment Error S T...mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Complications and treatment errors in peri‐implant soft tissue management

Stefanini

Marzadori

Sangiorgi

et al. 2023

Periodontology 2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Inadequate quality, quantity, or aesthetics of the peri‐implant soft tissues can result from a combination of factors related to the outcome of treatments performed before, during, or after implant placement. In this paper, we describe in detail the treatment errors that can pave the way for the onset of mucositis or give rise to soft tissue complications such as peri‐implant soft tissue discoloration or dehiscence, graft exposure, or scar formation. By tracing the error back to the planning or surgical stage, clinical insights on surgical soft tissue management are provided to avoid or treat complications that affect the status of the peri‐implant soft tissues. Mastering the learning curve and knowing the limitations of each technique are fundamental for preventing added treatment failures that can result in increased patient morbidity and overall discontent.

show abstract

Section: Soft Tissue Complications Caused By Treatment Errors That Oc...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Soft Tissue Complications Caused By Treatment Errors That Oc...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Sof T Tissue Complic Ations C Aus Ed By Tre Atment Error S T...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Sof T Tissue Complic Ations C Aus Ed By Tre Atment Error S T...mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Complications and treatment errors in peri‐implant soft tissue management

Stefanini

Marzadori

Sangiorgi

et al. 2023

Periodontology 2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Proper three-dimensional (3D) implant position is considered to be a critical factor for the long-term stability of dental implants. [1][2][3] Shortor long-term postoperative complications are likely to emerge because variations in the experience level of surgeons will eventually result in variability of implant positioning by freehand insertions. 4 Therefore, digital technologies, including static guides and dynamic navigations, are applied to implant surgeries to diminish the inherent positional uncertainty of freehand implantations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

In vitro and in vivo accuracy of autonomous robotic vs. fully guided static computer‐assisted implant surgery

He,

Zhang,

Wang

et al. 2024

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesTo assess the accuracy of autonomous robotic and fully guided static computer‐assisted implant surgery (sCAIS) performed on models and patients.Materials and MethodsThis study was divided into in vitro and in vivo sections. In vitro, 80 operators were assigned to two groups randomly. Forty operators performed forty autonomous robotic implant (ARI group) surgeries and the remaining forty operators carried out forty fully guided sCAIS (FGI group) surgeries on maxillary models, respectively. Each operator placed an implant in one maxillary model. In vivo, 60 patients with 113 implants from 2019 to 2023 (ARI group: 32 patients, 58 implants; FGI group: 28 patients, 55 implants) receiving implant surgeries were incorporated in this retrospective research. The preoperative and postoperative cone beam computer tomographs (CBCTs) were utilized to estimate the linear deviations and angular deviations in two‐dimensional (2D) and three‐dimensional (3D) space. The Pearson's chi‐square test, Shapiro–Wilk test, Student's t test, Mann–Whitney U test and mixed models were applied, and p <0.05 was considered statistically significant.ResultsIn vitro, a total of 80 implants were enrolled and significant differences were found between the two groups (p < 0.001): The 3D deviation at the platform of ARI and FGI group was 0.58 ± 0.60 mm and 1.50 ± 1.46 mm, respectively, at the apex was 0.58 ± 0.60 mm and 1.78 ± 1.35 mm, respectively, and angle was 1.01 ± 0.87° and 2.93 ± 1.59°, respectively. Also, except for mesiodistal deviation at the implant platform, the rest linear and angular deviations in the ARI group were significantly lower than those in the FGI group in 2D space (p < 0.001). In vivo, a significantly lower mean of angular deviation (0.95 ± 0.50°, p < 0.001) and the linear deviation at both platform (0.45 ± 0.28 mm, p < 0.001) and apex (0.47 ± 0.28 mm, p < 0.001) were observed in ARI group when compared to the FGI group (4.31 ± 2.60°; 1.45 ± 1.27 mm; 1.77 ± 1.14 mm).ConclusionsThe use of autonomous robotic technology showed significantly higher accuracy than the fully guided sCAIS.

show abstract

Implant‐abutment emergence angle and profile in relation to peri‐implantitis: A systematic review

Soulami

Slot

Weijden

2022

Clinical & Exp Dental Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Statement:The aim of this systematic review is to analyze literature regarding the relationship between the implant-abutment emergence angle (EA) and implant emergence profile (EP) and the prevalence of peri-implantitis.Methods: PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies from initiation up to April 2022. Studies describing the EA and EP in association with peri-implantitis were considered eligible for this review and selected for inclusion in this review if implant groups with wide and narrow EA and different EP types were described.Results: Searches in PubMed and the Cochrane Library led to 1116 unique titles and the inclusion of three studies. These concerned 168-349 implants.Two studies presented the mean prevalence of peri-implantitis which was 16.7% and 24.8% at the implant level. Both studies showed a significant relationship between peri-implantitis in bone-level implant groups with an EA above 30°compared to implants with an EA below 30°. A third study presented marginal bone loss which tended to be smaller when the EA was around 20°-40°.In one of the three included studies, the prevalence of peri-implantitis was significantly higher if implants had a convex EP compared to a concave or straight EP. Another study showed a significantly higher prevalence of peri-implantitis in implants with a convex EP compared to other EP types, if combined with an EA above 30°.Conclusions: Three eligible studies were found. Reported associations should therefore be considered with caution. Synthesis suggests an association between a larger EA (>30°) and a higher prevalence of peri-implantitis or marginal bone loss compared to a smaller EA (<30°). A convex EP may also be associated with a higher prevalence of peri-implantitis. However, causality remains a question.

show abstract

Buccolingual Implant Position and Vertical Abutment Finish Line Geometry

Cited by 7 publications

References 20 publications

Complications and treatment errors in peri‐implant soft tissue management

Complications and treatment errors in peri‐implant soft tissue management

In vitro and in vivo accuracy of autonomous robotic vs. fully guided static computer‐assisted implant surgery

Implant‐abutment emergence angle and profile in relation to peri‐implantitis: A systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About