Volumetric changes at implant sites: A systematic appraisal of traditional methods and optical scanning‐based digital technologies

Abstract

AimTo evaluate techniques for assessing soft tissue alterations at implant sites and compare the traditionally utilized methods to the newer three‐dimensional technologies emerging in the literature.Materials and MethodsA comprehensive search was performed to identify interventional studies reporting on volumetric changes at implant sites following different treatments.ResultsSeventy‐five articles were included the following: 30 used transgingival piercing alone, one utilized calliper, six with ultrasonography, six on cone‐beam computed tomography, and 32 utilized optical scanning and digital technologies. Optical scanning‐based digital technologies were the only approach that provided ‘volumetric changes,’ reported as volumetric variation in mm3, or the mean distance between the surfaces/mean thickness of the reconstructed volume. High variability in the digital analysis and definition of the region of interest was observed. All the other methods reported volume variation as linear dimensional changes at different apico‐coronal levels. No studies compared volumetric changes with different approaches.ConclusionsDespite the emergence of optical scanning‐based digital technologies for evaluating volumetric changes, a high degree of variation exists in the executed workflow, which renders the comparison of study results not feasible. Establishment of universal guidelines could allow for volumetric comparisons among different studies and treatments.

Assessment of reference areas for superimposition of serial 3D models of patients with advanced periodontitis for volumetric soft tissue evaluation

“…Both the superimposition accuracy and volumetric changes were evaluated with well‐established method for assessing volumetric changes, calculated as a mean distance between the surfaces of two 3D models (∆D; Tavelli et al., 2020). The main benefit of using ∆D is standardization and possible comparison between sites and studies.…”

The peri‐implant phenotype and implant esthetic complications. Contemporary overview

“…Several etiological factors for PSTDs have been identified, including inadequate KMW and/or MT, buccally positioned implant platform, overcontoured prosthesis and traumatic toothbrushing 95,101,102 . Bearing in mind that the etiology must be eliminated before treating these conditions, the primary goal for the treatment of PSTD is to reposition the STM (and the crown margin) at the same level of the homologous tooth, with an adequate peri‐implant soft tissue phenotype and volume 26,103 . Our group recently proposed a classification of PSTDs based on the level of the STM and the bucco‐lingual position of the implant crown and platform 26 .…”

“…95,101,102 Bearing in mind that the etiology must be eliminated before treating these conditions, the primary goal for the treatment of PSTD is to reposition the STM (and the crown margin) at the same level of the homologous tooth, with an adequate peri-implant soft tissue phenotype and volume. 26,103 Our group recently proposed a classification of PSTDs based on the level of the STM and the bucco-lingual position of the implant crown and platform. 26 While evidence for PSTD treatment is still limited in the literature and mainly based on case series, it seems that coronally advanced flap and connective tissue graft, either with the combined surgical-prosthetic approach 104 or with a submerge technique, 105 is the approach of choice for these conditions.…”

3D analysis at implant sites after soft tissue augmentation with two types of collagen matrices: a pilot study

“…An eligible material needs to fulfil two main criteria: assure the space-maintenance over time and provide favourable mechanical and biological properties during the remodelling processes [24] . Recently, a new collagen matrix offers mechanical stability associated with a good biological behaviour, which promoted tissue formation, angiogenesis and similar outcomes compared to the gold standard in terms of volume increases in a pre-clinical model [25,26] . For the same purposes, a material comprised of a biodegradable and biocompatible crosslinked collagen scaffold was developed.…”