Complications and treatment errors in peri‐implant soft tissue management

Abstract

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.

Comparison of the minimally‐invasive roll‐in envelope flap technique to the holding suture technique in implant surgery: A prospective case series

“…The long‐term success of implant therapy is a multi‐factorial phenomenon with cornerstones such as implant bone level stability and the adjacent soft tissues among pertinent factors 7,8 . Moreover, the role of the soft tissue phenotype has also been highlighted more in the recent years relative to its influential effect on the long‐term outcomes of therapy 9,10 .…”

“…5,6 The long-term success of implant therapy is a multi-factorial phenomenon with cornerstones such as implant bone level stability and the adjacent soft tissues among pertinent factors. 7,8 Moreover, the role of the soft tissue phenotype has also been highlighted more in the recent years relative to its influential effect on the long-term outcomes of therapy. 9,10 The presence of a stable mucosal margin as well as a thicker phenotype would render positive results and decreases the chance for the occurrence of a peri-implant soft tissue dehiscence or deficiency (PSTD).…”

Long‐term treatment outcomes of single maxillary buccal peri‐implant soft tissue dehiscences: A 10‐year prospective study

“…7,8 Historically, late development of peri-implant soft-tissue dehiscence (PSTD) has been associated with impaired aesthetics [9][10][11] and increased risk for peri-implant diseases. 5,[12][13][14][15] Nevertheless, only very recently, a first attempt to estimate the prevalence of such conditions has been performed. 16 Indeed, the analysis of a cohort of 92 patients with 272 implants yielded a prevalence of 16.9% of PSTDs, and buccal implant position and the presence of a thin, soft tissue phenotype were statistically significantly associated with an increased risk for the development of such dehiscences.…”

“…Historically, late development of peri‐implant soft‐tissue dehiscence (PSTD) has been associated with impaired aesthetics 9–11 and increased risk for peri‐implant diseases 5,12–15 . Nevertheless, only very recently, a first attempt to estimate the prevalence of such conditions has been performed 16 .…”