The Aesthetic Contour Graft ‐ Enhancing peri‐implant soft tissue contours and pontic sites with guided bone regeneration

Abstract

Objective In this article, we will discuss strategies for enhancing peri‐implant soft tissue contours and pontic sites with hard tissue augmentation. Clinical consideration One of the keys to the esthetic illusion of an implant‐supported restoration is to create an ideal emergence profile. A critical part of any emergence profile is based on the height and thickness of the tissue surrounding the restoration and whether there are any defects in this tissue. Even when there is adequate bone in which to place implants, if any irregular ridge anatomy that supports this tissue is not corrected, then an unesthetic appearance of the restoration can result due to the lack of soft tissue with which to develop a proper emergence profile. Conclusion Most peri‐implant soft tissue deficiencies represent an underlying bony defect that can be corrected or enhanced through bone augmentation. Clinical significance Traditional methods of enhancing soft tissue emergence profiles around implants and pontic sites mostly involve the use of soft tissue augmentation techniques. Although there are few reports of the use of bone augmentation for this purpose, soft tissue contours can be enhanced by augmenting the underlying bone contours and, in many instances, may obviate the need for subsequent soft tissue augmentation.

Influence of bone morphology on the mechanobiological stimuli distribution of maxillary anterior labial bone: A biomechanical study

“…17 Whereas, some retrospective studies report that the thickness of soft tissue increase after facial bone tissue thickness increasing after GBR, improving implant esthetics, but the correlations needed further study. 18 The outcome in this study revealed that the alteration of labial bone thickness from 2.0 to 1.0 mm had insignificant difference on the effects on stress/strain distribution in the peri-implant bone tissue and implant's displacement. And the clinical result had indicated that soft tissue augmentation did effectively achieve satisfactory esthetic effects (Figure 7).…”

“…12 At the same time, soft tissue augmentation as a less traumatic and more intuitive technology of tissue augmentation has gained increasing clinical traction. [13][14][15][16][17][18][19] As similar studies indicate that the labial bone mass is intimately connected to biomechanical results. 20 Nevertheless, the available data to estimate the minimal bone thickness to avoid over-loading resorption from the biomechanical perspective is limited.…”

“…On the contrary, the soft tissue grafting procedures do not result in significant marginal bone loss but providing more natural‐looking peri‐implant soft tissues, which is more coordinated with the neighboring tissues in colors and facial contour compared to implant sites which does not implement soft tissue grafting 17 . Whereas, some retrospective studies report that the thickness of soft tissue increase after facial bone tissue thickness increasing after GBR, improving implant esthetics, but the correlations needed further study 18 …”

“…Meanwhile, effective reconstruction of unfavorable one‐wall bone defects remains a challenge for its insufficient graft stability and poor blood supply 12 . At the same time, soft tissue augmentation as a less traumatic and more intuitive technology of tissue augmentation has gained increasing clinical traction 13–19 …”

Preparation and Characterization of Porous Poly(Lactic Acid)/Poly(Butylene Adipate-Co-Terephthalate) (PLA/PBAT) Scaffold with Polydopamine-Assisted Biomineralization for Bone Regeneration

“…An alteration of the alveolar ridge contour following natural tooth loss compromises the esthetics and function of dental treatments, especially at the anterior part of the jaw [ 1 ]. The management of the tooth extraction site via the tissue regenerative approach is of interest as a new strategy in dental treatment.…”