Single immediate implant placement in the maxillary aesthetic zone with and without connective tissue grafting: Results of a 5-year randomized controlled trial

AIM

To assess the 5-year effects of grafting connective tissue while undertaking single immediate implant placement and provisionalization at the mid-buccal mucosa level (MBML). Secondary outcomes were buccal bone wall thickness (BBT), marginal bone level (MBL) and patient satisfaction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sixty patients with a single failing tooth in the maxillary anterior region were provided with an immediately placed and provisionalized implant. At implant placement, the patients randomly received either a connective tissue graft from the maxillary tuberosity (n = 30, test group) or no graft (n = 30, control group). The alveolar socket classification was mainly Type 2A. Data were collected before removing the failing tooth (T0 ), and at 1 (T1 ), 12 (T12 ) and 60 (T60 ) months after final crown placement. The primary outcome was the change in MBML compared with the pre-operative situation. Additionally, the change in BBT, MBL, aesthetics (using the Pink Aesthetic Score-White Aesthetic Score), soft-tissue peri-implant parameters and patient satisfaction were assessed.

RESULTS

At the 5-year follow-up, 27 patients could be analysed from each group. In each group, one implant was lost during the osseointegration period, within 3 months of placement, resulting in an implant survival rate of 96.7% in both groups. MBML change at T60 was -0.6 (-1.1 to -0.1) mm in the control group and 0.1 (-0.4 to 0.5) mm in the test group (p = .008). BBT and MBL, aesthetics, soft-tissue peri-implant parameters and patient satisfaction showed stable results and satisfied patients, without clinically relevant differences between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This 5-year follow-up study shows that grafting connective tissue when replacing a single failing tooth with immediately placed and provisionalized implant results in favourable peri-implant tissues and fewer MBML changes.

Profilometric, esthetic, and patient-reported outcomes of the L-shape technique combined with delayed connective tissue grafting in the maxillary anterior region: A 3-year case series study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the profilometric, esthetic, and patient-reported outcomes of peri-implant tissues in the maxillary anterior esthetic zone following guided bone regeneration (GBR) using the L-shape technique combined with delayed connective tissue grafting (CTG).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Profilometric and pink esthetic score (PES) measurements were performed at the time of implant surgery with GBR (T0) and at the 1- (T1), 2- (T2), and 3-year (T3) follow-up. Patient-reported outcomes were also assessed using the Oral Health Impact Profile-14 (OHIP-14) questionnaire. Statistical analysis over 3 years of follow-up assessed changes at time points (T0, T1, T2, and T3) and time periods (T0-T1, T0-T2, and T0-T3) using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.

RESULTS

A total of 12 patients (57.5 ± 12.3 years) were included in this study. The mean profilometric change in peri-implant tissues over the 3-year follow-up period was 3.49 ± 1.11 mm, and the buccal contours were not significantly different between the comparison periods. The PES remained stable, while all OHIP-14 domain scores improved significantly.

CONCLUSION

Simultaneous implant placement and GBR using the L-shape technique combined with delayed CTG in the maxillary anterior region provides stable buccal profiles and consistent esthetics and improves patient-reported quality of life over a 3-year period.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

This study demonstrated that GBR using the L-shape technique combined with delayed CTG in the maxillary anterior region improved the buccal profile, esthetics, and patient-reported quality of life.

Soft Tissue Substitutes in Periodontal and Peri-Implant Soft Tissue Augmentation: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Different extracellular matrix (ECM)-based technologies in periodontal and peri-implant soft tissue augmentation have been proposed in the market. The present review compared the efficacy of soft tissue substitutes (STSs) and autogenous free gingival grafts (FGGs) or connective tissue grafts (CTGs) in mucogingival procedures to increase keratinized tissue (KT) width around teeth and implants.

METHODS

Two independent examiners performed an electronic search on MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library based on the following PICOS format: (P) adult patients; (I) soft tissue substitutes and FGGs/CTGs; (C) STSs vs. CTGs; STSs vs. FGGs; STSs vs control; (O) KT width gain; (S) systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials. Studies published before November 2023 were included.

RESULTS

Around teeth, all biomaterials showed superior performance compared to a coronally advanced flap (CAF) alone for treating gingival recessions. However, when compared to CTGs, acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) yield the most similar outcomes to the gold standard (CTGs), even though in multiple recessions, CTGs continue to be considered the most favorable approach. The use of STSs (acellular matrix or tissue-engineered) in combination with apically positioned flaps (APF) resulted in significantly less gain in KT width compared to that achieved with FGGs and APFs. Around dental implants, free gingival grafts were deemed more effective than soft tissue substitutes in enhancing keratinized mucosa width.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the available evidence, questions remain about the alternative use of soft tissue substitutes for conventional grafting procedures using free gingival grafts or connective tissue grafts around teeth and implants.

The Use of Tissue Grafts Associated with Immediate Implant Placement to Achieve Better Peri-Implant Stability and Efficacy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: The goal of this systematic study and meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy of hard and/or soft tissue grafts associated with type-1 implants on healing and treatment outcomes. The primary outcomes studied were implant survival rate, pocket depth, marginal peri-implant recession, bone loss, bone thickness (volumetric change), interproximal bone level, mesial and distal papilla migration, and radiographic evaluation; and the secondary parameters were Pink Esthetic Score (PES), vertical distance from implant shoulder and bone, Visual Analogue Score (VAS), Implant Stability Quotient (ISQ), and biological complications (fistulas, pain, mucositis, and peri-implantitis). Methods: The PICO strategy was used to formulate the hypothesis under study: "For patients who underwent extraction and immediate implant placement, what is the efficacy of using any type of graft (bone or soft tissue) compared to non-grafting regarding the peri-implant parameters?" The electronic search process was performed on the MedLine/PubMed and Cochrane databases. It included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from the last 11 years (from 2012 to November 2023), which were identified and analyzed. Results: Nine RCTs (κ = 0.98) were selected (403 patients and 425 implants); they were divided into three groups: bone graft (75 patients and 75 implants inserted), bone graft and membrane (213 patients and 235 implants inserted), and without bone graft (115 patients and 115 implants inserted). Three studies calculated the mid-facial mucosa level and two reported better results when a connective tissue graft was combined with the xenograft, whereas another study found better results in the combination of a dual-zone technique with a xenograft. Three studies evaluated the total Pink Esthetic Score (PES) at 12 months, where the authors found no significant difference in using a xenogeneic graft with or without a membrane. In the same period, the facial bone thickness was assessed in two articles; the authors reported better results in graft-treated and flapless groups. The risk-of-bias assessment found four studies with low risk, four with moderate risk, and one with a high risk of bias. The meta-analysis showed a medium level of heterogeneity for the mid-facial mucosa level analysis (I2 = 46%) and an overall effect size of 0.79 (95% CI [0.18; 1.40]), a statistically significant results (p = 0.01), with a tendency to favor the experimental group. Also, there was a medium level of heterogeneity among studies regarding total PES (I2 = 45%), with no significant differences between studies (p = 0.91). Homogeneous results (I2 = 0%) were found among studies analyzing facial bone thickness, favoring the experimental group; the forest plot showed an effect of 0.37 (95% CI [0.25; 0.50]), which was statistically significant (p < 0.00001) for this parameter. Conclusions: Then, it was possible to conclude that using bone and soft tissue grafting techniques associated with immediate implant placement (IIP), even though they are not fundamental, was a valuable resource to prevent significant tissue reduction, reaching greater bone stability and higher levels in the Pink Esthetic Score (PES) and Visual Analogue Score (VAS).

Immediate implant placement in compromised sockets: A systematic review and meta-analysis

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Immediate implant placement provides a popular therapeutic option. However, compromised sockets may jeopardize the treatment outcome.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the treatment outcome in terms of the implant survival rate and success parameters of immediate implant placement in compromised extraction sockets.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An electronic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ISI Web of Science up to January 2021. Studies evaluating implant survival rate and main success parameters were included for a qualitative and quantitative analysis (risk ratio and mean difference).

RESULTS

In total, 43 studies with analysis of 4825 sockets were included. Compared with the noncompromised sockets, the compromised group showed no significant differences in implant survival rates (risk ratio=0.992; 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.979 to 1.005; P=.246). No significant statistical differences were found in marginal bone level at ≤12 months (mean difference [MD]=0.033; 95% CI=-0.012 to 0.078; P=.154) or esthetic parameters.

CONCLUSIONS

Immediate implant placement in compromised sites does not appear to decrease the survival and success rates. However, randomized clinical trials with large sample sizes should be conducted to draw a definite conclusion about the efficacy and safety of this treatment protocol in compromised sockets.

Buccal bone thickness and mid-facial soft tissue recession after various surgical approaches for immediate implant placement: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of controlled trials

AIM

To evaluate the relative efficacy and confidence in the precision of the results of different surgical interventions for immediate implant placement in the anterior area.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Electronic searches were performed in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL. Randomized controlled trials comparing different surgical techniques in anterior jaws for type 1 implant placement were included. Outcome measures included implant survival (primary outcome), buccal bone thickness (BBT) reduction, and mid-facial soft tissue recession (MSTR). Risks of bias assessment, network meta-analysis (NMA), sensitivity analysis, and quality-of-evidence assessment were performed.

RESULTS

Twenty-two studies reporting on 948 subjects and 5 surgical interventions were included. Fourteen early failures were reported. Compared with open-flap surgery without tissue augmentation (F-N) and looking at BBT preservation, NMA showed that there was moderate confidence that flapless surgery with hard tissue augmentation (FL-HTA) was better than flapless surgery without tissue augmentation (FL-N) or open-flap surgery with hard tissue augmentation (F-HTA) (mean difference -0.8 mm, 95% confidence interval: -1.1 to -0.5 mm; -0.6 mm, -0.9 to -0.4 mm; and -0.5 mm, -0.7 to -0.3 mm, respectively). There was moderate confidence that flapless surgery with hard and soft tissue augmentation (FL-HTA&STA) could significantly prevent MSTR compared with FL-HTA (-0.5 mm, -0.7 to -0.3 mm) and FL-N (-0.6 mm, -1.2 to -0.04 mm). However, there was no significant additional benefit in BBT with the FL-HTA&STA approach compared to the FL-HTA approach (-0.30 mm, -0.81 to 0.21 mm).

CONCLUSIONS

For immediate implant placement in the anterior areas, the FL-HTA approach better preserves BBT (moderate confidence); adding STA improves the stability of the mid-facial soft tissue level (moderate confidence) but at the expense of BBT (low confidence).

Evaluation of esthetic outcome of delayed implants with de-epithelialized free gingival graft in thin gingival phenotype with or without immediate temporization: a randomized clinical trial

AIM

The current study investigates the effect of immediate temporization on the pink esthetics of delayed implants in patients with thin gingival phenotype in combination with a De-epithelialized Free Gingival Graft in the maxillary premolar area.

METHODOLOGY

The study population was randomly assigned into two groups. The two groups were treated with delayed implants with simultaneous placement of a de-epithelialized free gingiva graft. The test group was immediately temporized while the control group had no temporization. The pink esthetic score was assessed as the primary outcome. Additional secondary outcomes were assessed such as the keratinized tissue width and the soft tissue thickness.

RESULTS

Twenty implants were placed in the current study, split into 10 implants per group. The results showed that the Pink Esthetic Score of the IT group was 11.88 ± (1.13) and 11.33 ± (1.25) for the CTG group, which showed no statistical difference between the groups after 1 year of follow-up. There was also no significant difference between the two groups at 12 months regarding the keratinized tissue width and the soft tissue thickness.

CONCLUSIONS

Immediate and delayed temporizations have no effect on the Pink Esthetics of the delayed implants; however, immediate temporization allowed earlier provisional crown delivery. Soft tissue augmentation of the thin gingival phenotype improved esthetics for both groups. Trial registration Name of the registry: clinicaltrials.gov; trial registration number: NCT03792425. Date of registration: January 3, 2019. URL of trial registry record: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03792425?term=NCT03792425&draw=2&rank=1.

Accuracy of partially and fully guided surgical techniques for immediate implant placement: An in vitro assessment

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Optimal implant positioning is essential to achieving predictable results. Computer-guided surgery has been reported to be an accurate technique for implant placement in healed sites, but the accuracy of guided techniques for immediate implant placement into fresh sockets is still unclear.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this experimental randomized split-mouth study in pig jaws was to determine the accuracy of partially and fully guided surgical techniques for immediate implant placement into fresh sockets and to compare 2 different methods of implant position deviations analysis.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Twenty implants were installed in 10 pig jaws using 2 different techniques: partially guided (n=10) and fully guided (n=10). Cone beam computed tomography and digital scanning were performed before and after the surgical procedure to plan the virtual implant position and fabricate the surgical guide, as well as to determine implant position deviations. Two methods were used to evaluate implant deviations: tomographic and digital scanning. The Shapiro-Wilk test of normality was used. Deviation comparisons were carried out by using paired t tests (α=.05), and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was computed to assess the agreement between the 2 methods of implant deviation analysis.

RESULTS

In the tomographic analysis, the partially guided technique resulted in significantly higher global apical and lateral coronal deviations (2.25 ±0.59 mm; 0.96 ±0.55 mm) than fully guided (1.52 ±0.89 mm; 0.75 ±0.52 mm) (P<.01 and P<.05, respectively). The analysis performed using digital scanning showed significantly higher angular, global apical, and lateral apical deviations in the partially guided (6 ±3.28 degrees; 2.49 ±1.03 mm; 2.16 ±1.07 mm) technique than in the fully guided (3.32 ±1.84 degrees; 1.5 ±0.58 mm; 0.98 ±0.67 mm) (P<.05). An ICC of 0.522 between the 2 methods of implant deviation analysis was obtained.

CONCLUSIONS

The partially guided technique was less accurate than the fully guided technique for immediate implant placement into fresh sockets. A moderate concordance was observed between cone beam computed tomography and digital scanning analyses, suggesting that more studies are required to validate and to define the most reliable method of measuring implant deviation.

Clinical, radiographic, and esthetic evaluation of immediate implant placement with buccal bone dehiscence in the anterior maxilla: A 1-year prospective case series

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the clinical, radiographic, and esthetic outcomes of immediate implant placement with buccal bone dehiscence in the anterior maxilla.

METHODS

In this case series, implants were inserted immediately after tooth extraction in sockets with buccal bone dehiscence. Guided bone regeneration (GBR) with a papilla preservation flap and simultaneous connective tissue grafting (CTG) was used. The following outcome variables were measured: mid-facial mucosal recession, probing depth, bleeding on probing, Pink Esthetic Score (PES), marginal bone loss, and thickness of buccal bone plate (TBP).

RESULTS

12 patients were recruited. Stable mid-facial mucosal level (-0.03 ± 0.17 mm) and excellent soft-tissue esthetic outcomes (PES, 9.17 ± 0.72) were achieved at 1 year. The TBP at platform level was 2.01 ± 0.31 mm at 1-year follow up with a resorption rate of 28.90% ± 15.14%.

CONCLUSIONS

Immediate implant placement using GBR performed with a papilla preservation approach and simultaneous CTG is a feasible treatment procedure in compromised extraction sockets in the anterior region. Favorable esthetic outcomes and buccal bone thickness were obtained. Further studies were needed to evaluate the long-term tissue alteration.

Effect of osseodensification on the increase in ridge thickness and the prevention of buccal peri-implant defects: an in vitro randomized split mouth pilot study

BACKGROUND

Implant installation with conventional drilling can create buccal bone defects in areas of limited ridge thickness. Implant installation with osseodensification may aid in preventing buccal bone defects in these situations. This in vitro pilot study evaluated the impact of osseodensification on the increase in alveolar ridge thickness and the prevention of buccal peri-implant defects.

METHODS

Ten fresh pig mandibles with limited bone thickness were selected for use in an experimental randomized split mouth pilot study. Two site-preparation protocols were used: conventional drilling with cutting burs (CTL, n = 10) and osseodensification with Densah® burs (OD, n = 10). After implant bed preparation, 20 implants (4.5 × 10 mm) were placed in the prepared sites and the insertion torque was recorded. Clinical and photographic analysis evaluated ridge thickness and the extent (height, width, and area) of bone defects in the buccal and lingual bone walls following implant placement. Three-dimensional measurements were performed using STL files to analyze the increase in buccal ridge thickness following site preparation and implant placement. The height of the buccal bone defect was considered as the primary outcome of this study. Defect width, area, implant insertion torque, and linear buccal ridge increase after implant site preparation and installation were also assessed. Non-parametric evaluations were carried out with the Mann-Whitney test to verify intergroup differences.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference between groups in the baseline ridge thickness. OD presented a significantly higher insertion torque, associated with reduced buccal and lingual bone defect width, in comparison to CTL.

CONCLUSIONS

The increase in buccal ridge thickness after site preparation and implant placement was significantly higher in OD compared to CTL. Osseodensification increased the ridge thickness through expansion and reduced buccal bone defects after implant installation.

Effect of peri-implant mucosal thickness on esthetic outcomes and the efficacy of soft tissue augmentation procedures: Consensus report of group 2 of the SEPA/DGI/OF workshop

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to comprehensively assess the literature in terms of the effect of peri-implant mucosal thickness on esthetic outcomes and the efficacy of soft tissue augmentation procedures to increase the mucosal thickness with autogenous grafts or soft tissue substitutes.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Two systematic reviews (SR) were performed prior to the consensus meeting to assess the following questions. Review 1, focused question: In systemically healthy patients with an implant-supported fixed prosthesis, what is the influence of thin as compared to thick peri-implant mucosa on esthetic outcomes? Review 2, focused question 1: In systemically healthy humans with at least one dental implant (immediate or staged implant), what is the efficacy of connective tissue graft (CTG), as compared to absence of a soft tissue grafting procedure, in terms of gain in peri-implant soft tissue thickness (STT) reported by randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) or controlled clinical trials (CCTs)? Review 2, focused question 2: In systemically healthy humans with at least one dental implant (immediate or staged implant), what is the efficacy of CTG, as compared to soft tissue substitutes, in terms of gain in peri-implant STT reported by RCTs or CCTs? The outcomes of the two SRs, the consensus statements, the clinical implications, and the research recommendations were discussed and subsequently approved at the consensus meeting during the group and plenary sessions.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a tendency of superior esthetic outcomes in the presence of a thick mucosa. The connective tissue graft remains the standard of care in terms of increasing mucosa thickness.

Efficacy of soft tissue augmentation procedures on tissue thickening around dental implants: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

The first focused question (FQ1) was: What is the efficacy of connective tissue graft (CTG), as compared to the absence of soft tissue grafting procedure, in terms of gain in peri-implant soft tissue thickness (STT) reported by randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) or controlled clinical trials (CCTs)? The second focused question (FQ2) was: What is the efficacy of CTG, as compared to soft tissue substitutes, in terms of gain in peri-implant STT reported by RCTs or CCTs?

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A manual and electronic search was performed for each question to identify RCTs and CCTs published up to July 2020. The primary outcome variable was changes in peri-implant STT and secondary outcomes were marginal bone level (MBL), clinical parameters for the diagnosis of peri-implant health, changes in the position of peri-implant soft tissues, esthetic outcomes, and patient-related outcome measures (PROMs). For primary and secondary outcomes, data reporting mean values and standard deviations for each study were extracted. Weighted mean differences (WMDs) or standardized mean differences as well as 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and prediction intervals (PIs) were calculated.

RESULTS

Eight trials were included to answer the first focused question and eight to answer the second one, providing data for 254 and 192 patients, respectively. For the first focused question, a statistically significant difference of 0.64 mm in STT was found in favor of the grafted group (n = 8; 95% CI [0.16; 1.13]; 95% PI [-1.06; 2.35]; p = .01). Moreover, sites treated with CTG exhibited statistically significant less recession than implants without a graft (n = 4; WMD = 0.50 mm; 95% CI [0.19; 0.80]; 95% PI [-0.70; 1.69]; p < .001). For the second focused question, the meta-analysis showed a statistically significant gain of STT in the CTG group when compared to soft tissue substitutes (n = 8; WMD = 0.51 mm; 95% CI [0.28; 0.75]; 95% PI [-0.09; 1.12]; p < .001). Furthermore, the use of CTG resulted in significantly higher pink esthetic score values (n = 3; WMD = 1.02; 95% CI [0.29; 1.74]; 95% PI [-3.67; 5.70]; p = .01) and less recession (n = 2; WMD = 0.50 mm; 95% CI [0.10; 0.89]; 95% PI [not estimable]; p = .014) when compared to soft tissue substitutes. No statistically significant differences between groups were observed for any of the following secondary variables: MBL, clinical parameters for the diagnosis of peri-implant health, position of the interproximal tissues, keratinized mucosa or PROMS (p > 0.05), except for medication intake, which was significantly higher when using CTG as compared to soft tissue substitutes (n = 2; WMD = 1.68; 95% CI [1.30; 2.07]; 95% PI [not estimable]; p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Soft tissue augmentation procedures are efficacious on soft tissue thickening and, in particular, CTG demonstrated a significant STT gain when compared to no graft or soft tissue substitutes.

Etiology and Treatment of Peri-Implant Soft Tissue Dehiscences: A Narrative Review

Implant soft tissue dehiscences compromise not only the aesthetics of the supported restorations but implant survival in the long run. The aim of this narrative review was to briefly present the causative factors of buccal peri-implant soft tissue dehiscences (PSTDs), how these are classified, and the current therapeutic approaches. Implant malposition and the thin peri-implant phenotype are the two major determinants for the occurrence of PSTDs, but other risk factors have also been identified. The most common surgical procedure for treating PSTDs is the split-thickness coronally advanced flap combined with either a connective tissue graft or acellular dermal matrix materials. However, depending on the class and subtype of the dehiscence, the combination of surgical techniques with modifications in the restoration may further ameliorate the final result. In general, within a five-year follow-up period, most techniques lead to a satisfactory aesthetic result, although full coverage of the implant/abutment surface is not always achievable, especially in more extended lesions.

Does simultaneous soft tissue augmentation around immediate or delayed dental implant placement using sub-epithelial connective tissue graft provide better outcomes compared to other treatment options? A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The clinical benefits of simultaneous implant placement and soft tissue augmentation using different treatment modalities are unclear. The current meta-analysis aimed to compare the effect of simultaneous soft tissue augmentation using subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) around immediate or delayed dental implant placement with other treatment modalities on the peri-implant tissue health and esthetic.

METHODS

Up to May 2021, four databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central, and Google Scholar) were searched. Randomized control trials with follow-up >3 months, evaluating simultaneous implant placement (immediate or delayed) and soft tissue augmentation using SCTG compared with other treatment modalities were included. The predictor variables were SCTG versus no augmentation with/without guided bone regeneration (GBR) or other augmentation techniques (Acellular dermal matrix (ADM), Xenogeneic collagen matrix (XCM). The outcome variables were buccal tissue thickness (BTT), mid-buccal gingival level (MGL), marginal bone loss (MBL), and pink esthetic scores (PES). Cumulative mean differences (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated.

RESULTS

Twelve studies were included. SCTG along with immediate implant placement (IIP) or delayed implant placement (DIP) showed a statistically significant improvement in BTT (Fixed; MD, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.51; 0.97), MGL (Fixed; MD, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.21; 0.80), PES (Fixed; MD, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.29; 1.29), and less MBL (Fixed; MD, -0.11; 95% CI, -0.14; -0.08) compared to no graft (P<0.05). A statistically insignificant differences in BTT (Random; MD, 0.62; 95% CI, -0.41; 1.65), MGL (Fixed; MD, -0.06; 95% CI, -0.23; 0.11), MBL (Fixed; MD, 0.36; 95% CI, -0.05; 0.77) and PES (Fixed; MD, 0.28; 95% CI, -0.10; 0.67) was observed when SCTG along with DIP was compared with no augmentation plus GBR. Similarly, no statistically significant difference was observed when comparing SCTG along with DIP with acellular dermal matrix (ADM) concerning BTT (MD:0.71, P = 0.18) and KMW (MD: 0.6, P = 0.19).

CONCLUSION

There is a very low quality of evidence to provide recommendations on whether simultaneous dental implant placement (IIP or DIP) and soft tissue augmentation using SCTG is superior to no augmentation or is comparable to the other tissue augmentation materials in improving the quality and quantity of peri-implant tissues. Therefore, further, well-designed RCTs with larger sample sizes and long follow-up times are still needed.

Esthetic complications in implant dentistry

Esthetic complications in implant dentistry have become a significant consideration for patients and practitioners. This review presents an appraisal on the current knowledge of the physiological peri-implant soft-tissue dimensions and factors that may compromise peri-implant tissue esthetics. Factors such as papilla fill adjacent to the implant and midfacial mucosal height are critical parameters that determine the esthetic success of implant-supported restorations. Papilla fill adjacent to a single dental implant appears to depend upon the clinical attachment level of the neighboring tooth. A horizontal inter-implant distance of at least 3 mm is necessary to ensure optimal interproximal mucosal embrasure between two adjacent implants in the anterior maxilla. In cases where implants cannot be placed at least 3 mm apart, a single implant with a cantilever bridge should be considered. Buccolingual implant positioning plays a major role in midfacial mucosal height. Soft-tissue volume grafting following immediate implant placement in the presence of a thin soft-tissue phenotype or simultaneous to surgical peri-implantitis therapy might help to overcome facial mucosa recession.

Alveolar ridge augmentation using autogenous bone graft and platelet-rich fibrin to facilitate implant placement

The maxillary anterior region is considered to be the esthetic zone of human dentition. Missing teeth in this area leads to severely compromised esthetics and function. Endosseous implants are a viable treatment option in this scenario, but the placement of endosteal implants requires adequate bone volume for successful osseointegration. When the morphology of the bone does not allow proper implant placement, there are various bone augmentation procedures which aid in reconstruction of the residual alveolar ridge for ideal implant placement. The mandibular parasymphysis can act as an excellent source of autogenous bone for the augmentation of alveolar ridge deficiencies. This article describes successful augmentation of the maxillary alveolar ridge using block bone autografts harvested from the mandibular symphysis along with platelet-rich fibrin. At 6 months after surgery, implant was inserted, and after a healing period of 5 months, permanent restoration was placed.

Soft-tissues stabilization after immediate implant; platform switch with supraperiosteal augmentation

The architecture around an oral implant pushes the clinicians for an equalization of biological and physiological requirements. An esthetic implant-supported restoration needs plethora of knowledge and expertise. Surgeon skills can be of use for correct tridimensional position of implant in the extraction socket, shaped abutment contours, and anatomical final crown. An immediate implant placement for a fresh socket requires existing oral parameters judgment and evidence-based treatment plan. They are hard- and soft-tissue relationship, gingival biotype, and the tooth position. In this article, we describe a case of immediate implant placement, provisional crown, bovine bone contraction, soft-tissue collapse, and its management.

Buccal bone dimensional changes at immediate implant sites in the maxillary esthetic zone within a 4-12-month follow-up period: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the changes in buccal bone dimensions (CBD) following immediate implant placement in the maxillary esthetic zone and to identify the factors influencing the degree of buccal bone resorption for different placement and restoration protocols.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An electronic search was conducted using the EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and MEDLINE (PubMed) databases, combined with a manual and gray literature search, up to January 2021. Selected clinical studies had to report the changes in horizontal buccal bone dimension in maxillary immediate implantation sites (premolar to premolar) at baseline and at follow-up visits within a year of implantation. A meta-analysis was conducted to calculate the mean value of the changes in horizontal and vertical buccal bone dimensions (CHBD and CVBD) around implants. To further investigate the heterogeneity and identify factors associated with buccal bone loss after immediate implant placement, subgroup analysis and univariate meta-regression were performed.

RESULTS

From a total of 3498 articles, 4 randomized controlled trials and 12 nonrandomized controlled trials were included for analysis. The mean survival rate of 568 implants was 99.6%. The mean CHBD and CVBD values were 0.71 mm (95% confidence interval: [0.56, 0.86]) and 0.58 mm (95% confidence interval: [0.43, 0.72]), respectively. For possible factors that related to bone resorption, including buccal bone thickness, flap design, bone grafting, horizontal defect dimension, and restoration protocol, bone grafting was the only variable that significantly influenced CHBD.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated that immediate implant placement in the esthetic zone does not prevent buccal bone from resorption. Due to data heterogeneity and the small sample size of the studies included in the analysis, further well-conducted, randomized controlled trials with homogeneous samples are required to investigate the correlation of CBD with different variables.

Linear and profilometric changes of the mucosa following soft tissue augmentation in the zone of aesthetic priority: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To assess the outcomes of soft tissue augmentation, in terms of change in level and thickness of mid-buccal mucosa, at implants sites in the zone of the aesthetic priority.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched (last search on 1 June 2020). Inclusion criteria were studies reporting outcomes of different materials and timing of grafting in patients undergoing soft tissue augmentation at implant sites in the aesthetic zone with a follow-up of ≥1 year after implant placement. Outcome measures assessed included changes in level and thickness of mid-buccal mucosa, implant survival, peri-implant health and patients' satisfaction.

RESULTS

Eighteen out of 2,185 articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis revealed a significant difference in vertical mid-buccal soft tissue change (0.34 mm, 95% CI: 0.13-0.56, p = .002) and mid-buccal mucosa thickness (0.66 mm, 95% CI: 0.35-0.97, p < .001) following immediate implant placement in favour of the use of a graft versus no graft. Mean difference in mid-buccal mucosa level following delayed implant placement (0.17 mm, 95% CI: 0.01-0.34, p = .042) was also in favour of the use of a graft versus no graft. With regard to mucosa thickness, the use of a graft was not in favour compared with no graft following delayed implant placement (0.22 mm, 95% CI: -0.04-0.47, p = .095). Observed changes remained stable in the medium term.

CONCLUSION

Soft tissue augmentation in the zone of the aesthetic priority results in less recession and a thicker mid-buccal mucosa following immediate implant placement and less recession in mid-buccal mucosa following delayed implant placement compared with no graft.

The effect of soft tissue augmentation on the clinical and radiographical outcomes following immediate implant placement and provisionalization: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Nowadays, due to the esthetic and social demands of patients, conventional staged protocols seem to be increasingly replaced by faster, one-step protocols. The purpose of the present systematic review is to assess the peri-implant soft tissue changes after immediate implant placement and provisionalization (IIPP) comparing patients treated with or without a sub-epithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) when replacing a single tooth in the esthetic region.

Methods

The present systematic review was written following the PRISMA checklist. Immediate implants placed with a connective tissue graft and without one were compared. The researched primary outcomes were the mid-buccal mucosa level (MBML) facial soft tissue thickness (FSTT) and marginal bone loss (MBL). The weighted mean differences (WMD) were estimated for all three outcomes.

Results

The change in the mid-buccal mucosa level in the intervention group was significantly higher (WMD 0.54; 95% CI 0.33–0.75), with no indication of heterogeneity (I² = 16%). The facial soft tissue thickness increased significantly in the intervention group (WMD 0.79; 95% CI 0.37–1.22). The marginal bone loss was significantly higher in the control group (WMD 0.13; 95% CI 0.07–0.18), with no indication of heterogeneity (I² = 0%).

Conclusions

The results of the meta-analyses showed a statistically significant reduced change of the marginal bone loss and vestibular recession, as well as higher soft tissue thickness, when a graft was used. The included studies had a short observation time; therefore, studies with longer follow-ups are needed to confirm these findings.

Is there any biomaterial substitute for peri-implant soft tissue phenotype modification? A network meta-analysis of the appraisal literature

Evidence shows that an increased width and thickness of the keratinized mucosa favours peri-implant health. The aim of this network meta-analysis was to compare the clinical effects of alternative biomaterials for peri-implant soft tissue phenotype modification (PSPM) in patients with dental implants when compared to autologous tissue grafts. An electronic search without language or date limitations was performed in four databases and the grey literature for articles published until November 2020. The eligibility criteria included randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating the clinical outcomes of biomaterials for PSPM. A pairwise and network meta-analysis was conducted for each parameter to assess and compare the outcomes between the different treatment arms for the primary and secondary outcomes. A total of 11 RCTs were included in this review. The free gingival graft (FGG) showed the best clinical effect for increasing keratinized mucosa width (KMW). When compared in a network, the FGG demonstrated the best treatment ranking of probability results, followed by connective tissue graft (CTG), acellular dermal matrix (ADM), and xenogeneic collagen matrix (XCM). For the parameters 'mucosa thickness' and 'participant satisfaction with aesthetics', the results were CTG > ADM > XCM and XCM > ADM > CTG, respectively. Autogenous tissue grafts (FGG/CTG) demonstrate the best results in increasing KMW and mucosa thickness when compared to the other biomaterials.

Immediate implant with provisionalization and soft tissue grafting after 4-year follow-up

INTRODUCTION

This paper presents a case report of immediate implant placement (IIP) with a provisionalization technique to restore function and esthetics with follow-up after 4 years.

CASE PRESENTATION

Minimally traumatic extraction was performed with IIP, soft-tissue grafting, and immediate provisional crown. Six months after optimal healing, the patient was submitted to an esthetic restorative work through veneers in lithium disilicate. Fourteen-month and 4-year follow-up visits revealed stability of the peri-implant soft-tissues with peri-implant health status, with the evaluation of the pink and white esthetic score, yielding to mean scores, respectively, in 14 months of 11.62 ± 2.07 (pink esthetic score [PES]) and 18.25 ± 1.46 (PES/white esthetic score [WES]) and in 4 years of 11.0 ± 1.32 (PES) and 17.62 ± 0.65 (PES/WES). Intraoral digital radiographs showed minimal crestal bone level changes throughout the follow-up period. Thus, IIP is a sensitive technique procedure, and a 3D implant position is crucial for success.

CONCLUSION

Immediate implant with grafting to fill the gap and soft tissue augmentation led to less horizontal changes and stable mucosal margin, and immediate provisionalization helped to maintain soft tissue architecture, and proper case selection is key for clinical success.

Aesthetic outcomes of non-functional immediately restored single post-extraction implants with and without connective tissue graft: A multicentre randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

To compare the 1-year aesthetic results of flapless single implants, placed in fresh extraction sockets with bone replacement and immediate provisional restoration with or without a connective tissue graft (CTG).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The present study proposes a partially blinded multicentre parallel randomized controlled trial, where computer-generated tables were used for central randomization to allocate treatments. A total of 59 of the 60 patients screened by eight private practices in Northern Italy fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Immediate implants were placed in a fresh extraction socket with a non-functional immediate provisional restoration with (Test group) or without (Control group) a CTG. The primary outcome variable was the implant Crown Aesthetic Index (ICAI) at the 1-year follow-up.

RESULTS

ICAI for the 59 randomized patients (Test group = 31, Control group = 28) at the 1-year follow-up was 4.69 (95% CI = 3.16-6.22) for the Test group and 3.45 (95% CI = 1.83-5.08) for the Control group, without statistically significant difference between the two groups (p = .086). One implant failure was recorded in each group, resulting in an implant survival rate of 96.8% [95% CI = 83.3-99.9] for the Test group and 96.4% [95% CI = 81.7-99.9] for the Control group. Other secondary outcome variables and complication rates were comparable across the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitations of the present clinical trial, the results suggested that the adjunct use of CTG is not mandatory to achieve successful aesthetic outcomes for a well-planned immediate implant placement with immediate non-functional provisional restoration in a fresh extraction socket.

Immediate Implant Placement with Buccal Bone Augmentation in the Anterior Maxilla with Thin Buccal Plate: A One-Year Follow-Up Case Series

PURPOSE

To evaluate the buccal bone thickness of immediate implant placement with buccal bone augmentation in patients with a thin buccal plate in the esthetic zone.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eighteen consecutive patients requiring a single tooth replacement in the anterior maxillary zone with a thin plate (<1 mm) were included and received immediate implant placement with narrow-diameter implants. Patients received buccal bone augmentation (both internal and external socket bone grafting) with deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) and an absorbable membrane. The final restoration was delivered after 8 months. Cone-beam CT scans were performed before surgery (CBCT0), immediately after surgery (CBCT1), at final restoration delivery (CBCT2), and at 1-year follow-up after the final restoration (CBCT3) to evaluate the buccal bone thickness and ridge width. A repeated measures ANOVA and Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons were applied for statistical analysis of changes within different time points (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

Fifteen of the 18 enrolled patients were available for analysis at the 1-year follow-up after final restoration. The mean buccal bone thickness at 2 mm apical to the implant-abutment junction (IAJ-2) were 3.59 mm (range: 3.04-4.58 mm), 2.79 mm (range: 2.25-3.78 mm), and 2.52 mm (range: 1.72-3.36 mm), respectively, at CBCT1, CBCT2, and CBCT3. A statistical significance was observed for buccal bone thickness change between CBCT1 and CBCT2 at IAJ-2 (F = 17.948, p = 0.001). The net gains of the ridge width from CBCT0 to CBCT1, CBCT1 to CBCT2, and CBCT2 to CBCT3 were 1.08 mm, -0.94 mm and -0.04 mm at 4 mm apical to the cementum-enamel junction, respectively. No statistical significance was observed for the change in ridge width from CBCT0 to CBCT3 (F = 10.518, p = 1.000).

CONCLUSIONS

Simultaneous buccal bone augmentation may maintain a predictable buccal bone thickness for immediate implant placement in the maxillary anterior sites with a thin buccal plate (<1 mm) at 1-year follow-up after final restoration.

Efficacy of different surgical techniques for peri-implant tissue preservation in immediate implant placement: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Preserving peri-implant tissues after immediate implant placement (IIP), especially in aesthetic zones, is a topic of interest.

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review investigated the effects of currently available surgical procedures for preserving peri-implant tissue or ensuring dimensional stability following immediate implant placement.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement's guidelines were followed, and articles were sought on the PubMed and Cochrane databases with no date restrictions. Only randomised clinical trials that evaluated changes in soft and hard tissues around immediately placed implants were included. Statistical analyses were performed, and the studies´ quality was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. The agreement between reviewers was assessed based on Cohen's kappa statistics.

RESULTS

Of the 14 studies that met the inclusion criteria, 11 were analysed in the meta-analysis (kappa = 0.814; almost perfect agreement). The use of connective tissue grafts resulted in a significantly greater improvement of the facial gingival level (MD = -0.51; 95% CI: -0.76 to -0.31; p = < .001), and the placement of bone grafts significantly reduced the horizontal resorption of the buccal bone (MD = -0.59; 95% CI: -0.78 to -0.39; p < .001).

CONCLUSION

Connective tissue grafts and bone grafts positively influence tissue preservation around immediately placed implants. Neither the flapless technique nor palatal implant positioning resulted in significant improvements to any of the investigated parameters. Additional longitudinal studies are required.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This meta-analysis is useful for discerning the effects of soft tissue augmentation, bone grafting, the flapless technique, and palatal implant positioning on preserving peri-implant tissues after immediate implant placement.

Immediate implant placement in conjunction with guided bone regeneration and/or connective tissue grafts: an experimental study in canines

Purpose

This study was conducted to assess the effect of hard and/or soft tissue grafting on immediate implants in a preclinical model.

Methods

In 5 mongrel dogs, the distal roots of P2 and P3 were extracted from the maxilla (4 sites in each animal), and immediate implant placement was performed. Each site was randomly assigned to 1 of the following 4 groups: i) gap filling with guided bone regeneration (the GBR group), ii) subepithelial connective tissue grafting (the SCTG group), iii) GBR and SCTG (the GBR/SCTG group), and iv) no further treatment (control). Non-submerged healing was provided for 4 months. Histological and histomorphometric analyses were performed.

Results

Peri-implant tissue height and thickness favored the SCTG group (height of peri-implant mucosa: 1.14 mm; tissue thickness at the implant shoulder and ±1 mm from the shoulder: 1.14 mm, 0.78 mm, and 1.57 mm, respectively; median value) over the other groups. Bone grafting was not effective at the level of the implant shoulder and on the coronal level of the shoulder. In addition, simultaneous soft and hard tissue augmentation (the GBR/SCTG group) led to a less favorable tissue contour compared to GBR or SCTG alone (height of peri-implant mucosa: 3.06 mm; thickness of peri-implant mucosa at the implant shoulder and ±1 mm from the shoulder: 0.72 mm, 0.3 mm, and 1.09 mm, respectively).

Conclusion

SCTG tended to have positive effects on the thickness and height of the peri-implant mucosa in immediate implant placement. However, simultaneous soft and hard tissue augmentation might not allow a satisfactory tissue contour in cases where the relationship between implant position and neighboring bone housing is unfavorable.

Immediate implant placement with or without connective tissue graft: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of connective tissue graft (CTG) in terms of vertical mid-facial soft tissue change when applied at the buccal aspect following single immediate implant placement (IIP).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two independent reviewers conducted an electronic literature search in PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE and Cochrane databases as well as a manual search to identify eligible clinical studies up to January 2020. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized controlled studies (NRSs) comparing IIP with CTG and without CTG over a mean follow-up of at least 12 months were included for a qualitative analysis. Meta-analyses were performed on data provided by RCTs.

RESULTS

Out of 1814 records, 5 RCTs and 3 NRSs reported on 409 (IIP + CTG: 246, IIP: 163) immediately installed implants with a mean follow-up ranging from 12 to 108 months. Only 1 RCT showed low risk of bias. Meta-analysis revealed a significant difference in terms of vertical mid-facial soft tissue change between IIP + CTG and IIP pointing to 0.41 mm (95% CI [0.21; 0.61], p < .001) in favour of soft tissue grafting. This outcome was clinically relevant since the risk for ≥1 mm asymmetry in mid-facial vertical soft tissue level was 12 times (RR 12.10, 95% CI [2.57; 56.91], p = .002) lower following IIP + CTG. Soft tissue grafting also resulted in a trend towards less bleeding on probing (MD 17%, 95% CI [-35%; 1%], p = .06). Meta-analyses did not reveal significant differences in terms of pink aesthetic score, marginal bone level change and probing depth. Results were inconclusive for horizontal mid-facial soft tissue change and papilla height change. Based on GRADE guidelines, a moderate recommendation for the use of a CTG following IIP can be made.

CONCLUSION

CTG contributes to mid-facial soft tissue stability following IIP. Therefore, CTG should be considered when elevated risk for mid-facial recession is expected in the aesthetic zone (thin gingival biotype, <0.5 mm buccal bone thickness).

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

AIM

To 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 METHODS

A comprehensive search was performed to identify interventional studies reporting on volumetric changes at implant sites following different treatments.

RESULTS

Seventy-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.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite 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.

How Thick Is the Oral Mucosa around Implants after Augmentation with Different Materials: A Systematic Review of the Effectiveness of Substitute Matrices in Comparison to Connective Tissue Grafts

This systematic review aimed to assess the effectiveness of xenogeneic collagen matrices (XCMs) and acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) in comparison to connective tissue grafts (CTGs) for the augmentation of oral mucosa around dental implants. MEDLINE and the Web of Science were searched for clinical studies that compared substitute materials for the augmentation of oral mucosa to the subepithelial connective tissue graft around dental implants during or after implantation. The review was conducted according to the recommendations of the PRISMA statement. From an initial search result set of 1050 references, seven articles were included in the review. The study designs were heterogeneous, so no meta-analysis could be performed. Both the CTG and either type of substitute material resulted in increased mucosal thickness. Four studies showed no significant difference, while three demonstrated a significant difference, favoring the CTGs over alternative materials. Soft tissue augmentation around dental implants is a safe procedure and leads to thicker mucosal tissue. The subepithelial connective tissue graft can still be regarded as the gold standard, but substitute materials may be an acceptable alternative in some situations, such as for pain-sensitive patients, among inexperienced surgeons, and for sites with an already thick biotype.

The effectiveness of immediate implant placement for single tooth replacement compared to delayed implant placement: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

To compare immediate implant placement (IIP) to delayed single implant placement (DIP, ≥3 months post-extraction) in terms of implant survival (primary outcome), surgical, clinical, aesthetic, radiographic and patient-reported outcomes (secondary outcomes).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two reviewers independently performed an electronic search in PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE and Cochrane and a hand search to identify eligible studies up to May 2018. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized controlled studies (NRSs) comparing IIP to DIP with at least 1 year of follow-up were selected for a qualitative analysis and meta-analysis.

RESULTS

The search identified 3 RCTs and 5 NRSs out of 2,589 titles providing data on 473 single implants (IIP: 233, DIP: 240) that had been in function between 12 and 96 months. One RCT showed unclear risk of bias, whereas all other studies demonstrated high risk. Meta-analysis showed significantly lower implant survival for IIP (94.9%) as compared to DIP (98.9%) (RR 0.96, 95% CI [0.93; 0.99], p = 0.02). All were early implant failures. A subgroup meta-analysis demonstrated a trend towards lower implant survival for IIP when postoperative antibiotics had not been administered (RR: 0.93, 95% CI [0.86; 1.00], p = 0.07). This was not observed among studies including the administration of postoperative antibiotics (RR: 0.98, 95% CI [0.94; 1.02], p = 0.35). Meta-analyses showed similar probing depth (WMD 0.43 mm, 95% CI [-0.47; 1.33], p = 0.35) and aesthetic outcomes as assessed by the pink aesthetic score (standardized WMD -0.03, 95% CI [-0.46; 0.39], p = 0.88) for IIP and DIP. Data on marginal bone loss were conflicting and highly biased. Soft tissue recession was underreported and available data were highly biased. Patient-reported outcomes were underreported, yet both IIP and DIP seemed well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

Immediate implant placement demonstrated higher risk for early implant loss than DIP. There is a need for RCTs comparing IIP to DIP with CBCT analyses at different time points and data on midfacial recession with the preoperative status as baseline. In these studies, the need for hard and soft tissue grafting should also be evaluated.

Autogenous soft tissue grafting for periodontal and peri-implant plastic surgical reconstruction

This state-of-the-art review presents the latest evidence and the current status of autogenous soft tissue grafting for soft tissue augmentation and recession coverage at teeth and dental implant sites. The indications and predictability of the free gingival graft and connective tissue graft (CTG) techniques are highlighted, together with their expected clinical and esthetic outcomes. CTGs can be harvested from the maxillary tuberosity or from palate with different approaches that can have an impact on graft quality and patient morbidity. The influence of CTGs on soft tissue thickness and keratinized tissue width are also discussed.

Treatment of peri-implant soft tissue defects: a narrative review

Soft tissue defects around dental implants, such as papilla or volume loss, peri-implant recession and alterations of the ridge color and/or texture, lead to esthetic and functional complaints. Treatments of these defects in implants are more demanding than in teeth because peri-implant tissue exhibits different anatomical and histological characteristics. This narrative review discusses the proposed treatments for soft tissue defects around implants in the current literature. Several clinical and pre-clinical studies addressed methods to augment the quantity of the peri-implant keratinized mucosa. Autogenous grafts performed better than soft tissue substitutes in the treatment of soft tissue defects, but there is no clinical consensus on the more appropriate donor area for connective tissue grafts. Treatment for facial volume loss, alterations on the mucosa color or texture and shallow peri-implant recessions are more predictable than deep recessions and sites that present loss of papilla. Correction of peri-implant soft tissue defects may be challenging, especially in areas that exhibit larger defects and interproximal loss. Therefore, the regeneration of soft and hard tissues during implant treatment is important to prevent the occurrence of these alterations.

Using Digital Technique to Obtain the Ideal Soft Tissue Contour in Immediate Implants With Provisionalization

This paper presents a newly developed digital technique to make a provisional crown that mimics the natural tooth during immediate implant placement. Basically, a digital technique results in a precise transfer tooth emergence profile for provisional restoration in immediate implant placement so that an ideal periimplant soft tissue contour can be maintained. The architecture of extraction socket is obtained digitally before the surgery that allows for implant planning by position of the implant as well as the emergence profile of provisional restoration. The introduction of this approach provides a versatile, precise, and predictable procedure leading to better esthetic outcomes.