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

Kim, Young Kyun; Kim, Su Gwan; Oh, Hee-Kyun; Choi, Yeon; Cho, Yong Seok; Oh, Young Hak; Son, Jun Sik; Ong, Joo L.

doi:10.1016/j.tripleo.2009.03.039

Cited by 11 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

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%

Mucosa Thickness and Peri-implant Crestal Bone Stability: A Clinical and Histologic Prospective Cohort Trial

Canullo¹,

Camacho-Alonso²,

Tallarico³

et al. 2017

Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To correlate soft tissue thickness and peri-implant bone remodeling of platform-switching implants. Materials and Methods: This comparative prospective trial evaluated, for up to 3 years after implant loading, the influence of soft tissue thickness on changes in peri-implant marginal hard tissue levels. Any patient who was partially edentate in the mandible and required at least two adjacent implant-supported restorations was recruited at the University of Valencia in Spain. A 3-mm tissue punch biopsy, which corresponded to a diameter slightly smaller than the coronal diameter of the implants, was performed using a circular mucotome. Afterward, implants with a length of 10 to 13 mm and a diameter of 3.8 mm were inserted. Outcome measures were implant and prosthesis survival rates, marginal hard tissue changes, any complications, and results of morphologic and histomorphometric analyses. Correlation between mucosa width components (epithelium, connective tissue, and epithelium and connective tissue) and radiographic bone loss at 1 and 3 years after loading was performed at the patient level. Statistical significance was set at P ≤ .05. Results: A total of 26 samples in 26 patients with 68 implants were analyzed. The specimens were divided into two groups: group 1 (16 patients, 40 implants), with thin mucosa (≤ 2 mm), and group 2 (10 patients, 28 implants), with thick mucosa (> 2 mm). Two dropouts (two specimens) were recorded at the 3-year follow-up. None of the implants or definitive prostheses failed during the healing period, resulting in an overall implant and prosthesis cumulative survival rate of 100%. No major biologic or mechanical complications were recorded. The mean (standard deviation, SD) epithelium thickness was 430.33 (250.21) µm; the mean (SD) connective tissue thickness was 1,324.31 (653.46) µm, and the mean (SD) mucosa thickness was 1,751.29 (759.53) µm. Comparisons of radiographic bone loss between group 1 and group 2 failed to show any statistically significant differences at the 1-year (P = .290) or 3-year (P = .090) follow-up examinations. Conclusion: The initial mucosa thickness surrounding a bone-level platform-switching implant seems not to influence the pattern of physiologic marginal bone loss. Int J Oral MaxIllOfac IMplants 2017 (7 pages).

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mucosa Thickness and Peri-implant Crestal Bone Stability: A Clinical and Histologic Prospective Cohort Trial

Canullo¹,

Camacho-Alonso²,

Tallarico³

et al. 2017

Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…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%

Prospective Clinical and Radiographic Study of Alveolar Ridge Preservation Combining Freeze‐Dried Bone Allograft With Two Xenogeneic Collagen Matrices

Parashis

Hawley

Stark

et al. 2016

Journal of Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…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%

Maxillary immediate implant loading: A comprehensive review

Abichandani

Nadiger

2013

J Dent Implant

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The incredible achievement of osseointegration and certainty of implant treatment modality in the mandible has provoked investigations, to look in the maxillary segment to check and understand if similar success rates can be achieved. This assessment of literature regarding this will give us knowledge about the various treatment modalities and investigations in an attempt understand the predictability and longevity of immediate implant loading in the maxilla carried out by various researchers. The basic nomenclature are considered and discussed, along with advantages and disadvantages of immediate loading, its relationship to osseointegration, its influence on primary stability and micro-motion. Excess weightage has been given to prosthodontically driven implant modality keeping the end-result in mind. Successful implementation of implant restorations can be done with the help of a few proposed guidelines.

show abstract

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

Cited by 11 publications

References 14 publications

Mucosa Thickness and Peri-implant Crestal Bone Stability: A Clinical and Histologic Prospective Cohort Trial

Mucosa Thickness and Peri-implant Crestal Bone Stability: A Clinical and Histologic Prospective Cohort Trial

Prospective Clinical and Radiographic Study of Alveolar Ridge Preservation Combining Freeze‐Dried Bone Allograft With Two Xenogeneic Collagen Matrices

Maxillary immediate implant loading: A comprehensive review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About