Impact of mucosal phenotype on marginal bone levels around tissue level implants: A prospective controlled trial

Garaicoa-Pazmiño, Carlos; Mendonça, Gustavo; Ou, Alice; Chan, Hsun‐Liang; Mailoa, James; Amo, Fernando Suárez-López Del; Wang, Hom Lay

doi:10.1002/jper.20-0458

Cited by 19 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 37 publications

(55 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The same should be considered true for distal bone which is typically thicker than mesial bone 41,42 . Importantly, this study population was also made up of the same cohort of a randomized clinical trial involving implant placement in the edentulous site adjacent to two teeth (which were included in the present study) 28 . To control for KM as a confounder in the mentioned cohort, presence of ≥ 2 mm of KM was considered in the inclusion criteria.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This clinical study was designed as a single arm prospective clinical trial. A total of 26 patients from a cohort undergoing implant placement in the posterior area were recruited 28 . Implants were placed in premolar or molar position at identical proportion ( n = 13/13).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Then, implant site preparation and placement were performed according to the implant system manufacturer recommendations. The smooth‐rough junction along the implant collar was placed at the level of the bone crest, whereas the machined portion of the implant was placed supracrestal as described in a previous publication 28 . Depending on the specific anatomical variations in each individual, the length of the implant selected ranged between 9 and 12 mm, the diameter of the implant ranged between 3.8 and 4.5 mm, and the implant platform diameter ranged between 3.5 and 4.6 mm.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Impact of the periodontal phenotype in premolar and molar sites on bone loss following full‐thickness mucoperiosteal flap: A 1‐year prospective clinical trial

Saleh

Couso‐Queiruga

Ravidà

et al. 2022

Journal of Periodontology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Full-thickness mucoperiosteal flap (FTF) elevation could potentially affect the periodontium of the involved teeth; it is not clear if the periodontal phenotype of teeth involved in a FTF may influence these changes. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of FTF on teeth periodontium, as well as assessing the impact of periodontal phenotype on bone remodeling. Methods: In this single arm prospective clinical trial, 26 subjects and a total of 52 adjacent teeth were included. Patients receiving implant surgery in the posterior area, at the time of implant site preparation, an FTF was extended one tooth mesial and distal to the planned site, and the flap was elevated both facially and lingually. Vertical and horizontal bone linear changes were measured on both adjacent teeth, using superimposed cone-beam computerized tomography (CBCT) images taken prior to implant placement (T0) and at 12 months (T1). Baseline digital scans of models and DICOM files were superimposed to assess the periodontal phenotype. Results: Vertical bone changes from T0 to T1 were statistically significant (P = 0.013), with changes were significantly higher at the mesial (−0.31 ± 0.30 mm) and facial (P < 0.05) sites. Horizontal dimensional changes 5 mm subcrestally were similar among different locations (P = 0.086) and the bone width loss was higher closest to the crest (P = 0.001). No correlation was found between soft tissue thickness and bone changes. However, bone thickness at baseline appears to influence the extent of horizontal bone remodeling. Overall, the magnitude of bone loss either vertically or horizontally was clinically insignificant (≤0.4 mm). A preventive effect against bone loss maybe expected with bone thickness > 2 mm. Conclusion(s):Marginal bone changes in maxillary and mandibular posterior teeth following FTF at 12 months are very minimal, and mainly influenced by bone rather than soft tissue thickness. Overall, FTF does not seem to have deleterious effects on adjacent teeth periodontium.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Impact of the periodontal phenotype in premolar and molar sites on bone loss following full‐thickness mucoperiosteal flap: A 1‐year prospective clinical trial

Saleh

Couso‐Queiruga

Ravidà

et al. 2022

Journal of Periodontology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We must mention though that most of our implants were above the red lines established for those important variables: (1) more than 2 mm of keratinized tissue, (2) more than 2 mm of tissue thickness and (3) more than 1 mm of buccal bone to implant (Table 1 and Figure 6). In any case, the influence of these parameters is being questioned in more recent studies, particularly that related to the thickness of the tissue [25][26][27].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Marginal Bone Loss around Implants with Internal Hexagonal and Internal Conical Connections: A 12-Month Randomized Pilot Study

Galindo‐Moreno

Concha-Jeronimo

Lopez-Chaichio

et al. 2021

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to analyze the differences in terms of the marginal bone level (MBL) around implants with either an internal conical or an internal hexagonal implant–prosthesis connection. A randomized clinical trial included patients in need of a single implant-supported restoration. The implant–prosthesis connection was either internal conical or internal hexagonal while maintaining the same type of implant macro- and microarchitecture. Clinical and radiographical variables were registered up to 12 months of follow-up, including MBL. A total of 30 patients were included in the study. The main outcome variable, MBL 12 months after prosthesis delivery, was statistically different in both groups: −0.25 (0.12) vs. −0.70 (0.43) (conical vs. hexagonal; p = 0.033). Differences were also observed at the 3- and 6-month follow-up visits as well as for the MBL change from prosthesis delivery to the 12-month follow-up (−0.15 (0.13) vs. −0.56 (0.44); conical vs. hexagonal; p = 0.023). Correlations between MBL around the implants and radiographic measurements on the adjacent teeth, buccal bone to implant, tissue thickness or keratinized tissue were not significant neither globally nor when analyzed independently by group. In view of such results, it can be concluded that single-unit restorations with internal hexagonal-connection implants induce higher marginal bone loss after 12 months of follow-up from prosthesis delivery than internal conical-connection implants.

show abstract

“…A recent NMA supports the view that thick supracrestal tissue can provide significantly less marginal bone loss [ 12 ]. A subsequent clinical trial by Garaicoa-Pazmino found that by providing more space for the formation of the supracrestal gingiva through tissue level implants, the marginal bone loss difference between gingival phenotypes could be mitigated to the level of non-significance at 1-year follow-up [ 13 ]. However, the influence of various alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) techniques on soft tissue outcomes remains to be determined [ 3 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Soft tissue dimensional changes after alveolar ridge preservation using different sealing materials: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Canullo

Pesce

Antonacci³

et al. 2021

Clin Oral Invest

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) is a proactive treatment option aiming at attenuating post-extraction hard and soft tissue dimensional changes. A high number of different types of biomaterials have been utilized during ARP to seal the socket, but their effectiveness in terms of soft tissue outcomes has rarely been investigated and compared in the literature. Objective To evaluate the efficacy of different types of membranes and graft materials in terms of soft tissue outcomes (keratinized tissue width changes, vertical buccal height, and horizontal changes) after ARP, and to assign relative rankings based on their performance. Materials and methods The manuscript represents the proceedings of a consensus conference of the Italian Society of Osseointegration (IAO). PUBMED (Medline), SCOPUS, Embase, and Cochrane Oral Health’s Information Specialist were utilized to conduct the search up to 06 April 2021. English language restrictions were placed and no limitations were set on publication date. Randomized controlled trials that report ARP procedures using different sealing materials, assessing soft tissue as a primary or secondary outcome, with at least 6-week follow‐up were included. Network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed using mean, standard deviation, sample size, bias, and follow-up duration for all included studies. Network geometry, contribution plots, inconsistency plots, predictive and confidence interval plots, SUCRA (surface under the cumulative ranking curve) rankings, and multidimensional (MDS) ranking plots were constructed. Results A total of 11 studies were included for NMA. Overall, the level of bias for included studies was moderate. Crosslinked collagen membranes (SUCRA rank 81.8%) performed best in vertical buccal height (VBH), autogenous soft tissue grafts (SUCRA rank 89.1%) in horizontal width change (HWch), and control (SUCRA rank 85.8%) in keratinized mucosa thickness (KMT). Conclusions NMA confirmed that the use of crosslinked collagen membranes and autogenous soft tissue grafts represented the best choices for sealing sockets during ARP in terms of minimizing post-extraction soft tissue dimensional shrinkage. Clinical relevance Grafting materials demonstrated statistically significantly better performances in terms of soft tissue thickness and vertical buccal height changes, when covered with crosslinked collagen membranes. Instead, soft tissue grafts performed better in horizontal width changes. Non-crosslinked membranes and other materials or combinations presented slightly inferior outcomes.

show abstract

Impact of mucosal phenotype on marginal bone levels around tissue level implants: A prospective controlled trial

Cited by 19 publications

References 37 publications

Impact of the periodontal phenotype in premolar and molar sites on bone loss following full‐thickness mucoperiosteal flap: A 1‐year prospective clinical trial

Impact of the periodontal phenotype in premolar and molar sites on bone loss following full‐thickness mucoperiosteal flap: A 1‐year prospective clinical trial

Marginal Bone Loss around Implants with Internal Hexagonal and Internal Conical Connections: A 12-Month Randomized Pilot Study

Soft tissue dimensional changes after alveolar ridge preservation using different sealing materials: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About