Histological characteristics of peri‐implant mucosa around Brånemark and single‐crystal sapphire implants

Abstract

Soft tissues surrounding Brånemark titanium implants and single crystal sapphire implants were studied by conventional light- and transmission electron microscopy and by immunohistochemical markers for cytokeratin, protein S-100, Factor VIII and KP1. Histological sections of biopsies obtained from clinically healthy peri-implant mucosa were separated into a keratinized outer implant epithelium and an inner, non-keratinized epithelium, both immunoreactive towards cytokeratin. The inner implant epithelium terminated in a junctional epithelium, apically not a few cell layers thick. The cells adjacent to the implant showed a condensed cytoplasm, resembling hemidesmosomes. In the underlying connective tissue, rich in fibroblasts and factor VIII immunoreactive blood vessels, the bundles of collagen ran in different directions. S-100 immunoreactive nerve structures were more frequently found beneath the outer than the inner implant epithelium. Inflammatory cell infiltrates, some KP1 positive, were observed in the apical parts of the inner implant epithelium. S-100 positive Langerhans' cells were present mainly within the the outer implant epithelium. For the two implant systems, the techniques disclosed no qualitative structural differences in the adjacent soft tissues.

Changing Paradigms in Implant Dentistry

“…As a consequence, the soft-tissue margin receded, and bone resorption occurred. These observations confirm previous; findings from animal experiments and clinical trials with single-crystal sapphire implants (Akagawa et al, 1989;Fartash et al, 1990;Arvidson et al, 1991Arvidson et al, , 1996.…”

Biologic Width Around Dental Implants.

“…Submerged versus non-submerged:-Studies revealed that a similar mucosal attachment formed on titanium in conjunction with different implant systems and around intentionally non-submerged and initially submerged implants (Buser et al 1992, Abrahamsson et al 1996, Arvidson et al 1996, Weber et al 1996. However, the peri-implant junctional epithelium was significantly longer in initially submerged implants than in intentionally non-submerged implants (Weber et al 1996).…”

Biological basis for soft tissue management in implant dentistry

“…Further studies comparing one-stage and two-stage procedures (submerged versus non-submerged), 15,16 loaded or unloaded nonsubmerged implants, 17 different implant systems, 18 different material surfaces 19 and different level of placement of the implant-abutment junction (micro-gap) 20 failed to demonstrate any difference in peri-implant tissue dimension (thickness) under these variable conditions. Taken together, these observations confirmed that the concept of biological width of the gingiva around natural teeth was equally applicable to peri-implant soft tissues.…”