Implant prosthodontic design as a predisposing or precipitating factor for peri‐implant disease: A review

Abstract

Over the past decade, emerging evidence indicates a strong relationship between prosthetic design and peri‐implant tissue health. The objective of this narrative review was to evaluate the evidence for the corresponding implant prosthodontic design factors on the risk to peri‐implant tissue health. One of the most important factors to achieve an acceptable implant restorative design is the ideal implant position. Malpositioned implants often result in a restorative emergence profile at the implant‐abutment junction that can restrict the access for patients to perform adequate oral hygiene. Inadequate cleansability and poor oral hygiene has been reported as a precipitating factors to induce the peri‐implant mucositis and peri‐implantitis and are influenced by restorative contours. The implant–abutment connection, restorative material selection and restoration design are also reported in the literature as having the potential to influence peri‐implant sort tissue health.

A double‐blind randomized within‐subject study to evaluate clinical applicability of four digital workflows for the fabrication of posterior single implant crown

“…The emergency profile designed correctly can maintain peri‐implant health and stability (Hamilton et al, 2023). Previous study proposed that the individualized healing abutment could be designed based on natural tooth to achieve ideal emergency profile (El‐Danasory et al, 2023).…”

The effect of the interproximal contour of single external hexagon implant restorations on the prevalence of peri‐implantitis: A retrospective study

“…[3][4][5][6] Previous history of periodontitis, poor plaque control, and the lack of regular peri-implant maintenance have all been strongly associated with peri-implantitis. 7 Other factors such as smoking and diabetes, 7 poor implant positioning, 8 keratinized mucosa width, 9 excess cement, 10,11 and restoration design [11][12][13][14][15][16] have also been under scrutiny with controversial results.…”

“…Partial or full-arch restoration design may hinder access to proper daily oral hygiene and professional maintenance measures, preventing adequate plaque control. [12][13][14][15][16] To minimize the fact that dental implants cannot replicate the different tooth sizes they are replacing, 17 dentists have a wide assortment of implant sizes and diameters at their disposal. The use of narrow implant platform dimensions and platform switching implants can affect the interproximal emergence angle (EA) and the emergence profile (EP), 18,19 resulting in a prosthess with a wider contour, which can compromise access to hygiene and lead to bone loss over time.…”