Marginal soft tissue recession after lateral guided bone regeneration at implant site: A long‐term study with at least 5 years of loading

Abstract

Background/aim This study evaluated marginal soft tissue recession at implants with simultaneous lateral guided bone regeneration (GBR), at least five years after prosthetic loading. Material and methods Patients treated with GBR at the time of implant placement and adherent to supportive periodontal therapy (SPT) program with at least 5 years of follow‐up were re‐examined in 5 clinical centers. At the last follow‐up, clinical and radiographic data on peri‐implant hard and soft tissue were collected. Multilevel analysis considering center, patient, and implant (brand, length, diameter, position) was performed. Results A total of 96 patients and 195 augmented implants were included. The mean duration of SPT was 8.3 ± 3.1 years, while mean recall frequency was 4.5 ± 1.3 months. Sixty‐five (33%) implants received soft tissue graft before prosthetic delivery. Twenty‐one (11%) implants developed biological complications during the follow‐up. No implant failure was reported. Mean difference in bone levels (ΔBL) was −0.7 ± 0.9 mm, while mean difference in keratinized tissue (ΔKT) was −0.4 ± 0.9 mm. Eighty‐five (44%) implants showed recession (REC) of soft tissue margin (mean 0.6 ± 0.8 mm). The presence of REC was associated with use of non‐resorbable membrane (p < .0001) and wider implant diameter (p = .0305), while use of soft tissue graft significantly predicted higher stability of peri‐implant mucosal margin (p = .0003). Conclusion Peri‐implant mucosal recession is a common feature 5 years after lateral GBR. The risk of recession may be reduced using GBR with resorbable membranes, small diameter implants, and soft tissue grafting before prosthetic treatment.

Buccal soft tissue dehiscence defects at dental implants—associated factors and frequency of occurrence: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

“…This varied among studies that reported patient‐level data; Bittner et al (2019) and Cordaro et al (2009) reported frequency values >50%, while four other publications provided frequency values <10% (Cosyn et al, 2011; Lindeboom et al, 2006; S. Raes et al, 2018; and Tian et al, 2019). Among the studies that reported on implant‐level data, one study (Oates et al, 2002) reported an occurrence of >60% of the patients, whereas three other publications (Cairo et al, 2020; Garabetyan et al, 2019; and Malchiodi et al, 2013) reported frequencies <15%. Moreover, the frequency of BSTD was evaluated as a function of the follow‐up time and type of the study and no clear association could be established between these variables (Figure 7).…”

Influence of buccal emergence profile designs on peri‐implant tissues: A randomized controlled trial

“…[1][2][3] The mucosal level change could be attributed to the surgical procedure, 4 prosthesis transmucosal design, 5 the soft tissue quantity and quality, supporting bone, and the soft tissue configuration over time. 6,7 Among these, the prosthesis contour design appears to significantly affect the shape of peri-implant soft tissue. 8,9 In the ninth edition of the Glossary of Prosthodontic Terms, the emergence profile was defined as "the contour of a tooth or restoration, such as the crown on a natural tooth, dental implant, or dental implant abutment, as it relates to the emergence from circumscribed soft tissues".…”

“…Postsurgical mucosal recession always occurs within 6–12 months after restoration placement and remains relatively stable after that 1–3 . The mucosal level change could be attributed to the surgical procedure, 4 prosthesis transmucosal design, 5 the soft tissue quantity and quality, supporting bone, and the soft tissue configuration over time 6,7 . Among these, the prosthesis contour design appears to significantly affect the shape of peri‐implant soft tissue 8,9 …”

Mechanical Pull-Out Test of a New Hybrid Fixture-Abutment Connection: An In Vitro Study

“…Nevertheless, the fixture abutment connection remains also a key factor [2]. It has been described how many elements could affect this critical area, such as fixture and abutment material, surface microtopography, treatments and connection type [8][9][10]. The latter could influence the biological response of peri-implant hard and soft tissues.…”