2009
DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2009.03.039
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluation of peri-implant tissue in nonsubmerged dental implants: a multicenter retrospective study

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…33,36 Another possible factor involved in marginal bone loss is the stability of peri-implant soft tissues. Several studies [37][38][39][40][41] describe the need for keratinized tissue around the implant neck as a control factor for periimplant bone loss.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…33,36 Another possible factor involved in marginal bone loss is the stability of peri-implant soft tissues. Several studies [37][38][39][40][41] describe the need for keratinized tissue around the implant neck as a control factor for periimplant bone loss.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…19,20 In addition, 2 mm of keratinized tissue around implants has been proposed as a requirement for efficient oral hygiene and long-term tissue stability. [21][22][23] Therefore, a goal of treatment should be to establish an adequate width and thickness of soft tissue in the edentulous ridge after tooth extraction. This might diminish the need for secondary augmentation procedures during implant placement and increase the chance for flapless implant surgery.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A 2‐mm thickness of ridge mucosa is required to allow stable soft‐tissue attachment to be formed and to reduce bone resorption after implant placement 19 , 20 . In addition, 2 mm of keratinized tissue around implants has been proposed as a requirement for efficient oral hygiene and long‐term tissue stability 21–23 . Therefore, a goal of treatment should be to establish an adequate width and thickness of soft tissue in the edentulous ridge after tooth extraction.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Despite this limit in the healing zone, it has been shown that [74] 28 168 ---98.2 -Ostman et al [11,78] 20 123 ≥8 >3.3 -99.2 12 Nordin et al [20] 19 [79] 19 116 >8 ≥3.75 ≥32 97.4 37.8 Degidi et al [41,71] 40 48 -3 ≥25 100 48 Ibanez et al [26] 41 (23 Md,26 Mx) † 343 (217 Mx, 126 Md) † -3.75-5.0 -99. 42 12.0-74.0 Schwartz-Arad et al, [10] 87 210 >13 ≥3.75 -97.6 Ostman et al, [11,78] 37 (20 Md, 20 Mx) † --->30 100 Degidi et al, [71] 780 780 (393 Mx, 387 Md) † 13.0-18.0 3.0-6.5 -99.5 Mijiritsky et al, [19] 16 24 13.0-16.0 3.3-5.5 ≥32 95.8 † -Indicates average Excellent primary stability/initial torque of placement Rigid splinting preferred over lone-standing adjacent implants [57,58] Adequate keratinized tissue [59][60][61][62][63][64][65] Use of a surgical guide [66] Use of a cone beam computed tomography scan technology Prosthodontically driven implant placement Absence of residual infection at the placement site by removal of all contaminated tissue [67][68][69][70][71] [Downloaded free from http://www. bone can fill osseous defects around implants if they are three-walled in nature [13] and <1.5-2.0 mm wide.…”
Section: Immediate Implantationmentioning
confidence: 99%