Evaluation of the clinical and aesthetic outcomes of Straumann®Standard Plus implants supported single crowns placed in non-augmented healed sites in the anterior maxilla: a 5-8 years retrospective study

The influence of thin as compared to thick peri-implant soft tissues on aesthetic outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives

In systematically healthy patients with an implant‐supported fixed restoration (P), what is the influence of thin (E) as compared to thick (C) peri‐implant soft tissues on aesthetic outcomes (O)?

Methods

Following an a priori protocol, a literature search of six databases was conducted up to August 2020 to identify prospective/retrospective clinical studies on healthy patients with an implant‐supported fixed reconstruction. Measurement of the buccal soft tissue thickness and an aesthetic outcome was a prerequisite, and sites presenting with a buccal soft tissue thickness of <2 mm or shimmering of a periodontal probe were categorized as a thin phenotype. After study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment, random‐effects meta‐analysis of Mean Differences (MD) or Odds Ratios (OR) with their corresponding 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were conducted, followed by sensitivity analyses and assessment of the quality of evidence.

Results

Thirty‐four unique studies reporting on 1508 patients with 1606 sites were included (9 randomized controlled trials, one controlled trial, 10 prospective cohort studies, 8 cross‐sectional studies, and 6 retrospective cohort studies). The mean difference of the pink aesthetic score (PES) after the follow‐up was not significantly different between thin (<2.0 mm) or thick soft tissues (≥2.0 mm) or phenotypes (12 studies; MD = 0.15; [95% CI = −0.24, 0.53]; p = .46). PES changes during the follow‐up, however, were significantly in favour of thick soft tissues (≥2.0 mm) or phenotypes (p = .05). An increased mean mucosal thickness was associated with an increased papilla index (5 studies; MD = 0.5; [95% CI = 0.1, 0.3]; p = .002) and an increase in papilla presence (5 studies; OR = 1.6; [95% CI = 1.0, 2.3]; p = .03). Thin soft tissues were associated with more recession, −0.62 mm (4 studies; [95% CI = −1.06, −0.18]; p = .006). Patient‐reported outcome measures (patient satisfaction) were in favour of thick soft tissues −2.33 (6 studies; [95% CI = −4.70, 0.04]; p = .05). However, the quality of evidence was very low in all instances due to the inclusion of non‐randomized studies, high risk of bias and residual confounding.

Conclusion

Within the limitations of the present study (weak study designs and various soft tissue measurements or time‐points), it can be concluded that increased soft tissue thickness at implant sites was associated with more favourable aesthetic outcomes.

New Generation of Fixture-Abutment Connection Combining Soft Tissue Design and Vertical Screw-Retained Restoration: 1-Year Clinical, Aesthetics and Radiographic Preliminary Evaluation

Implant design factors and the abutment connection are correlated with crestal bone stability. The aim of the present study was to evaluate a new type of screw-retained prostheses delivered on tissue-level implants with conical external vertical seal and internal hexagon connection. Implants 4.25 mm in diameter and 10 mm in length (Prama, Sweden and Martina) were placed in partially edentulous patients needing at least one implant in the healed site, having sufficient bone volume. The implant neck was positioned above the bone crest. A healing abutment was placed according to a one-stage approach. Outcome measures were implant and prosthesis survival rate, any complications, marginal bone loss (MBL), periodontal parameters, and pink esthetic score (PES). Overall, 13 patients (4 women and 9 men; mean age 50 ± 22 years) with the same number of implants were treated and followed for one year after loading. At the 12-month follow up, no implant and no prosthesis failed, and no complications were experienced. The mean MBL experienced at the one year follow-up was 0.65 ± 0.48 mm. One year after loading, 2 out of 13 implants present bleeding on probing (15.4%), 4 out of 13 patients presented with plaque at the one year of follow-up (30.8%) and the PES was 10.5 ± 2.3 mm. Within the limitations of the present study, the analyzed implants seem to be a viable treatment option for the rehabilitation of a single tooth gap.

Soft Tissue Contour Impression with Analogic or Digital Work Flow: A Case Report

Purpose: Transferring precise information to the dental laboratory is one of the key factors to achieving clinical success. The aim of the present study was to describe classical and digital work-flows used to rehabilitate an implant with a convergent collar in the aesthetic zone following the BOPT (biologically oriented preparation technique) approach and to report the three years follow-up outcomes of two patients rehabilitated following such procedures. Materials and methods: Two central incisors of two different patients were rehabilitated with a tissue-level implant with a convergent collar and, after a provisional and healing phase, one implant was “impressed” using a classical workflow and one using a digital one. The primary outcome measured was the mean bone loss. An intraoral radiograph was taken at crown delivery and at the three years follow-up visit. Secondary Esthetic outcomes pre-op and post-op were evaluated using the PES (pink esthetic score). Results: At the three years follow-up visit, radiographic analysis showed no signs of bone resorption. For the analogic procedure, the pre-and post-op PES scores were 8, whereas for the digital procedure the pre-op PES score was 4 and a post-op score of 9 was obtained. Conclusions: classical and digital work flows succeeded in giving precise and complete anatomical information of implant position, including the soft tissue contour. Minimum bone loss and an esthetic success were obtained in both procedures.

The dome technique: a new surgical technique to enhance soft-tissue margins and emergence profiles around implants placed in the esthetic zone

Achieving symmetry of the soft-tissue margins between anterior maxillary dental-implant restorations and adjacent teeth is a therapeutic challenge for both the implant surgeon and the restorative dentist. This article describes a modified procedure utilizing autogenous connective-tissue grafts to improve primarily buccal soft-tissue margins and secondarily inter-proximal tissues around tooth-bound single dental implants. This technique has the advantage of allowing for coronal augmentation of the peri-implant soft tissue while maximizing the blood supply to the area by using tunneling-technique principles. A detailed description of the technique and a case with a stable result over 24 months after crown placement is presented.

Peri-implant conditions and marginal bone loss around cemented and screw-retained single implant crowns in posterior regions: A retrospective cohort study with up to 4 years follow-up

The aim of the present study was to identify the peri-implant conditions (bleeding on probing (BOP), pocket probing depth (PPD), modified plaque index (mPI)) and marginal bone loss (MBL, marginal bone level change between follow-up and occlusal loading) around cemented and screw-retained posterior single crowns on tissue-level implants. The study was a retrospective cohort study with up to 4 years (mean 2.5 years) follow-up. Patients with either cemented or screw-retained crowns in posterior regions were included. Implant survival, technical complications, BOP, PPD, mPI, MBL, biologic complications (peri-implant mocositis and peri-implantitis) were evaluated. Mann-Whitney U test was used to test the difference between the screw-retained group (SG) and cemented group (CG). 176 patients (SG: 94, CG: 82) were included. The implant survival rates were 100% in SG and 98.8% in CG. Prosthetic screw loosening was found in 8 restorations (8.7%) at follow-up visit. Peri-implant mucositis rate was significantly higher in the SG group (42.1%) than that in the CG group (32.2%) (P = 0.04). Six patients (6.38%) in the screw-retained group and 5 patients (6.10%) in the cemented group were diagnosed with peri-implantitis, the difference did not reach statistical significance (P>0.05). No significant difference of PPD, mPI and MBL were found between two groups (P = 0.11, 0.13 and 0.08, respectively). High implant survival rates were achieved in both groups. Cemented single crowns on tissue-level implants showed comparable peri-implant conditions in comparison with two-piece screw-retained crowns. Well-designed prospective cohort or randomized controlled clinical trials with longer follow-up are needed to confirm the result.

Long-Term Effect of Surface Roughness and Patients' Factors on Crestal Bone Loss at Dental Implants. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Publications from 2011 to 2015 were selected to evaluate effect of implant surface roughness on long-term bone loss as surrogate for peri-implantitis risk. 87 out of 2,566 papers reported the mean bone loss after at least 5 years of function. Estimation of the proportion of implants with bone loss above 1, 2, and 3 mm as well as analysis the effect of implant surface roughness, smoking, and history of periodontitis was performed. By means of the provided statistical information of bone loss (mean and standard deviation) the prevalence of implants with bone loss ranging from 1 to 3 mm was estimated. The bone loss was used as a surrogate parameter for "peri-implantitis" given the fact that "peri-implantitis" prevalence was not reported in most studies or when reported, the diagnostic criteria were unclear or of dubious quality. The outcome of this review suggests that peri-implant bone loss around minimally rough implant systems was statistically significant less in comparison to the moderately rough and rough implant systems. No statistically significant difference was observed between moderately rough and rough implant systems. The studies that compared implants with comparable design and different surface roughness, showed less average peri-implant bone loss around the less rough surfaces in the meta-analysis. However, due to the heterogeneity of the papers and the multifactorial cause for bone loss, the impact of surface roughness alone seems rather limited and of minimal clinical importance. Irrespective of surface topography or implant brand, the average weighted implant survival rate was 97.3% after 5 years or more of loading. If considering 3 mm bone loss after at least 5 years to represent the presence of "peri-implantitis," less than 5% of the implants were affected. The meta-analysis indicated that periodontal history and smoking habits yielded more bone loss.

Aesthetic outcome of immediately restored single implants placed in extraction sockets and healed sites of the anterior maxilla: a retrospective study on 103 patients with 3 years of follow-up

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare the aesthetic outcome of single implants in extraction sockets and healed ridges of the anterior maxilla by means of the pink aesthetic score/white aesthetic score (PES/WES) index.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective study was based on data from 103 patients (43 males, 60 females) aged 24-65 years (mean age 41.4 ± 13.8 years) who had been successfully treated with a single implant in the anterior maxilla, in four different clinical centres. Forty-two patients (mean age 46.5 ± 15.1 years) were treated with a single implant in a fresh post-extraction socket (immediate implant treatment, IIT), while 61 patients (mean age 38.0 ± 11.8 years) were treated with a single implant in a healed site (conventional implant treatment, CIT). Two independent calibrated examiners applied the PES/WES index to the 103 single-tooth restorations, respectively 3 months and 3 years after implant placement.

RESULTS

A few biological (4.8%) and prosthetic (8.7%) complications were reported. Both IIT and CIT yielded satisfactory aesthetic outcomes. At the delivery of the final restoration, a PES/WES score of 16.6 ± 2.6 and 15.7 ± 3.0 was reported for IIT and CIT, respectively: this difference was not statistically significant. A higher decrease in the PES/WES score was observed with CIT over time. At 3 years, a PES/WES score of 16.4 ± 2.8 and 15.2 ± 3.3 was reported for IIT and CIT, respectively: this difference was statistically significant. IIT seemed to yield better aesthetic outcomes in young patients (≤30 years), with implants placed in central incisor/cuspid areas, in the presence of bone contouring.

CONCLUSIONS

Both immediate and conventional single-implant treatment in the anterior maxilla can yield satisfactory aesthetic outcomes, when performed by experienced clinicians in well-selected cases. Further studies are needed to confirm these results.