Factors associated with the presence of peri-implant buccal soft tissue dehiscences: A case-control study.
buccal mucosa
case-control studies
dental implants
esthetics
Journal
Journal of periodontology
ISSN: 1943-3670
Titre abrégé: J Periodontol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8000345
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Aug 2020
Aug 2020
Historique:
revised:
12
10
2019
received:
29
08
2019
accepted:
21
12
2019
medline:
25
1
2020
pubmed:
25
1
2020
entrez:
25
1
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To identify factors associated with the presence of buccal soft tissue dehiscences (BSTD). This cross-sectional observational study assessed 52 cases (CAS) with a minimum of 24 months of loading, with the presence of a BSTD, defined as an exposure of the prosthetic abutment, the implant neck or the implant surface in the anterior maxillae or mandible (premolar-premolar) and 52 carefully selected controls (CON) matched for age and years in function, being the only difference between groups the BSTD. Clinical parameters and radiographic findings from periapical radiographs and Cone Beam Computed Tomographies (CBCT) were analyzed to assess their association with the occurrence of BSTD using a multivariate regression model. The CAS had a mean keratinzed mucosa (KM) of 1.65 ± 1.31 mm, whereas in the CON KM was 3.27 ± 1.28 mm (P = 0.001). Probing depths were similar in both groups, whereas bleeding on probing and plaque scores were higher in the CAS (P = 0.001). Mean bone level scores in the CAS were 1.71 ± 1.04 mm, and 1.27 ± 1.01 mm in CON (P = 0.143). The first bone to implant contact at the buccal aspect was 4.85 ± 3.12 mm in CAS and 2.15 ± 3.44 mm in CON (P = 0.001). CAS were 1.48 ± 0.93 mm outside the alveolar envelope, whereas the CON were 0.46 ± 0.77 mm. Implants buccally positioned in the CBCT's were 34 times more likely to belong to the case group. The presence of >2 mm of KM at the time of evaluation, presence of adjacent natural teeth, cemented restorations and two-piece implants were protective factors. The bucco-palatal implant position was the most relevant factor related to the presence of BSTD.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
To identify factors associated with the presence of buccal soft tissue dehiscences (BSTD).
METHODS
METHODS
This cross-sectional observational study assessed 52 cases (CAS) with a minimum of 24 months of loading, with the presence of a BSTD, defined as an exposure of the prosthetic abutment, the implant neck or the implant surface in the anterior maxillae or mandible (premolar-premolar) and 52 carefully selected controls (CON) matched for age and years in function, being the only difference between groups the BSTD. Clinical parameters and radiographic findings from periapical radiographs and Cone Beam Computed Tomographies (CBCT) were analyzed to assess their association with the occurrence of BSTD using a multivariate regression model.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The CAS had a mean keratinzed mucosa (KM) of 1.65 ± 1.31 mm, whereas in the CON KM was 3.27 ± 1.28 mm (P = 0.001). Probing depths were similar in both groups, whereas bleeding on probing and plaque scores were higher in the CAS (P = 0.001). Mean bone level scores in the CAS were 1.71 ± 1.04 mm, and 1.27 ± 1.01 mm in CON (P = 0.143). The first bone to implant contact at the buccal aspect was 4.85 ± 3.12 mm in CAS and 2.15 ± 3.44 mm in CON (P = 0.001). CAS were 1.48 ± 0.93 mm outside the alveolar envelope, whereas the CON were 0.46 ± 0.77 mm. Implants buccally positioned in the CBCT's were 34 times more likely to belong to the case group. The presence of >2 mm of KM at the time of evaluation, presence of adjacent natural teeth, cemented restorations and two-piece implants were protective factors.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The bucco-palatal implant position was the most relevant factor related to the presence of BSTD.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31977079
doi: 10.1002/JPER.19-0490
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1003-1010Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© 2020 American Academy of Periodontology.
Références
Wennstrom JL. Mucogingival therapy. Ann Periodontol. 1996;1:671-701.
Pini Prato G. Mucogingival deformities. Ann Periodontol. 1999;4:98-101.
Cortellini P, Bissada NF. Mucogingival conditions in the natural dentition: narrative review, case definitions, and diagnostic considerations. J Clin Periodontol. 2018;45(Suppl 20):S190-s198.
Checchi L, Daprile G, Gatto MR, Pelliccioni GA. Gingival recession and toothbrushing in an Italian School of Dentistry: a pilot study. J Clin Periodontol. 1999;26:276-280.
Matas F, Sentis J, Mendieta C. Ten-year longitudinal study of gingival recession in dentists. J Clin Periodontol. 2011;38:1091-1098.
Karoussis IK, Bragger U, Salvi GE, Burgin W, Lang NP. Effect of implant design on survival and success rates of titanium oral implants: a 10-year prospective cohort study of the ITI Dental Implant System. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2004;15:8-17.
Jacobs R, Pittayapat P, van Steenberghe D, et al. A split-mouth comparative study up to 16 years of two screw-shaped titanium implant systems. J Clin Periodontol. 2010;37:1119-1127.
Ravald N, Dahlgren S, Teiwik A, Grondahl K. Long-term evaluation of Astra Tech and Branemark implants in patients treated with full-arch bridges. Results after 12-15 years. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013;24:1144-1151.
Hammerle CHF, Tarnow D. The etiology of hard- and soft-tissue deficiencies at dental implants: a narrative review. J Clin Periodontol. 2018;45(Suppl 20):S267-s277.
Jemt T, Book K, Lie A, Borjesson T. Mucosal topography around implants in edentulous upper jaws. Photogrammetric three-dimensional measurements of the effect of replacement of a removable prosthesis with a fixed prosthesis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1994;5:220-228.
Bengazi F, Wennstrom JL, Lekholm U. Recession of the soft tissue margin at oral implants. A 2-year longitudinal prospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1996;7:303-310.
Cosyn J, Eghbali A, Hermans A, Vervaeke S, De Bruyn H, Cleymaet R. A 5-year prospective study on single immediate implants in the aesthetic zone. J Clin Periodontol. 2016;43:702-709.
Nisapakultorn K, Suphanantachat S, Silkosessak O, Rattanamongkolgul S. Factors affecting soft tissue level around anterior maxillary single-tooth implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010;21:662-670.
Schrott AR, Jimenez M, Hwang JW, Fiorellini J, Weber HP. Five-year evaluation of the influence of keratinized mucosa on peri-implant soft-tissue health and stability around implants supporting full-arch mandibular fixed prostheses. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009;20:1170-1177.
Sanz M, Chapple IL. Clinical research on peri-implant diseases: consensus report of Working Group 4. J Clin Periodontol. 2012;39(Suppl 12):202-206.
Evans CD, Chen ST. Esthetic outcomes of immediate implant placements. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008;19:73-80.
Chen ST, Darby IB, Reynolds EC, Clement JG. Immediate implant placement postextraction without flap elevation. J Periodontol. 2009;80:163-172.
Peng M, Fei W, Hosseini M, Gotfredsen K. Influence of implant position on clinical crown length and peri-implant soft tissue dimensions at implant-supported single crowns replacing maxillary central incisors. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2013;33:785-793.
Zuiderveld EG, den Hartog L, Vissink A, Raghoebar GM, Meijer HJ. Significance of buccopalatal implant position, biotype, platform switching, and pre-implant bone augmentation on the level of the midbuccal mucosa. Int J Prosthodont. 2014;27:477-479.
Cosyn J, Sabzevar MM, De Bruyn H. Predictors of inter-proximal and midfacial recession following single implant treatment in the anterior maxilla: a multivariate analysis. J Clin Periodontol. 2012;39:895-903.
Veltri M, Ekestubbe A, Abrahamsson I, Wennstrom JL. Three-Dimensional buccal bone anatomy and aesthetic outcome of single dental implants replacing maxillary incisors. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016;27:956-963.
Jung RE, Herzog M, Wolleb K, Ramel CF, Thoma DS, Hammerle CH. A randomized controlled clinical trial comparing small buccal dehiscence defects around dental implants treated with guided bone regeneration or left for spontaneous healing. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017;28:348-354.
Wennstrom JL, Lindhe J, Sinclair F, Thilander B. Some periodontal tissue reactions to orthodontic tooth movement in monkeys. J Clin Periodontol. 1987;14:121-129.
Thoma DS, Lim HC, Paeng KW, Jung UW, Hammerle CHF, Jung RE. Tissue integration of zirconia and titanium implants with and without buccal dehiscence defects-a histologic and radiographic preclinical study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2019;30:660-669.
Sanz Martin I, Benic GI, Hammerle CH, Thoma DS. Prospective randomized controlled clinical study comparing two dental implant types: volumetric soft tissue changes at 1 year of loading. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016;27:406-411.
Gonzalez-Martin O, Oteo C, Ortega R, Alandez J, Sanz M, Veltri M. Evaluation of peri-implant buccal bone by computed tomography: an experimental study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016;27:950-955.
Vanderstuyft T, Tarce M, Sanaan B, Jacobs R, de Faria Vasconcelos K, Quirynen M. Inaccuracy of buccal bone thickness estimation on cone-beam CT due to implant blooming: an ex-vivo study. J Clin Periodontol. 2019; 46, 1134-1143.