Ratio between Height and Thickness of the Buccal Tissues: A Pilot Study on 32 Single Implants

Abstract

Background: Previous studies have suggested that mucosal height is related to the bone level and soft tissue thickness. The purpose of this pilot study was to investigate the ratio between the height and width of the tissues around single implants with a conical connection and platform switching. Methods: All patients receiving single implants (Anyridge®, MegaGen, Gyeongbuk, South Korea) and restored with single crowns, in a three-month period, were included in this study. After a provisionalization of 12 months, precision impressions were taken and stone casts were poured for measurements. For each implant, two values were collected at the buccal site: the mucosal height (MH), calculated from the vestibular shoulder of the implant to the upper gingival margin of the supra-implant tissue; and the mucosal thickness (MT), calculated from the vestibular shoulder of the analogue to the external mucosa point perpendicular to the implant major axis. Mean, standard deviation (SD), and confidence intervals (CI 95%) for MH and MT, as well as their ratios, were calculated. Correlation between MH and MT was assessed by Pearson's correlation coefficient, with significance level set at 0.05. Results: 32 single Anyridge® implants were eligible for this evaluation. The mean MH was 3.44 mm (±1.28), the mean MT was 3.29 (±1.46). The average of the ratio between MH and MT of the supra-implant mucosa was therefore 1:1.19 (±0.55). The relation between MH and MT was statistically significant at p ≤ 0.01 (Pearson two-tailed 95% CI). Conclusions: Our study found a constant relationship between width and height of the peri-implant mucosa. However, our results are different from those of Nozawa et al., who found a ratio of 1:1.5 between height and thickness of the peri-implant tissues. This may be determined by the different sample and follow-up period, as well as by the implants used in our study.

Correlation between Buccal Bone Thickness at Implant Placement in Healed Sites and Buccal Soft Tissue Maturation Pattern: A Prospective Three-Year Study

“…In the present study, the buccal free gingival margin was found to mature coronally when the BBT was ≥1.5 mm (Group 2), as also described in a previous case report by Pereira et al [44]. Another study also reported that the buccal tissue thickness has a significant influence on its own height relative to the implant connection in order to maintain consistent proportions [10]. Hence, it is reasonable to conclude that increasing the buccal tissue thickness will induce increased tissue height and better stability over time.…”

“…Nowadays, aesthetic outcome plays a fundamental role in oral implantology [2]. Thus, current research has turned its attention to the parameters that determine the aesthetic success of rehabilitation [10]. Certainly, the height of the soft tissue around a dental implant is key in determining a natural aesthetic result [28], as no rehabilitation showing recessions can be considered an aesthetic achievement [28].…”

“…Plus, Yoda et al suggested a minimum initial buccal bone thickness of 1.5 m [16]. Although still a topic of discussion, the aesthetic outcome of an implant-supported restoration would seem to be undoubtedly related to the buccal soft tissue height [10,17]. Therefore, this study focuses on the role of the buccal bone thickness (BBT) on facial tissue stability, measured at the time of implant placement.…”

“…Meanwhile, Steigman et al defined the importance of the emergence profile to manage soft tissue adjacent to dental implants [9]. Thus, soft tissue management at the prosthetic and surgical stages is considered essential to gain predictable and aesthetic results [10,11]. Moreover, the implant and abutment design, along with the connection, are also known to play important roles [12,13].…”

Peri-Implant Soft Tissue Conditioning by Means of Customized Healing Abutment: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

“…Nowadays, fulfilling the aesthetic expectations of patients is one of the most challenging tasks in implant dentistry [1]. Factors that influence the aesthetic outcome of an implant-supported rehabilitation include, amongst others, the position of the implant [2], the quantity and quality of hard and soft tissues, and their adaptation over time [3].…”