BACKGROUND: Attempts have been made to evaluate the biologic dimension of osseointegrated implants, however, most are histologic studies in animals, and the effect of soft tissue support from adjacent teeth on the interproximal dimension of the peri-implant mucosa for anterior single implants has not been addressed. This study clinically evaluated the dimensions of the peri-implant mucosa around 2-stage maxillary anterior single implants in humans after 1 year of function. The influence of the peri-implant biotype was also examined. METHODS: Forty-five patients (20 males and 25 females) with a mean age of 47.3 years were included in this study. A total of 45 maxillary anterior single implant crowns with a mean functional time of 32.5 months (range, 12 to 78) were evaluated. The dimensions of peri-implant mucosa were measured by bone sounding using a periodontal probe at the mesial (MI), mid-facial (F), and distal (DI) aspects of the implant restoration and the proximal aspects (MT, DT) of adjacent natural teeth. In addition, the peri-implant biotype was evaluated and categorized as thick or thin. Statistical analysis was performed using an independent t test (P<0.05). RESULTS: The means and standard deviations of the dimensions of peri-implant mucosa at MT, MI, F, DI, and DT were 4.20 +/- 0.77 mm, 6.17 +/- 1.27 mm, 3.63 +/- 0.91 mm, 5.93 +/- 1.21 mm, and 4.20 +/- 0.64 mm, respectively. The dimensions of peri-implant mucosa in the thick biotype were significantly greater than the thin biotype at MT, MI, and DT (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The mean facial dimension of peri-implant mucosa of 2-stage implants is slightly greater than the average dimension of the dentogingival complex. The level of the interproximal papilla of the implant is independent of the proximal bone level next to the implant, but is related to the interproximal bone level next to the adjacent teeth. Greater peri-implant mucosal dimensions were noted in the presence of a thick peri-implant biotype as compared to a thin biotype.
BACKGROUND: Attempts have been made to evaluate the biologic dimension of osseointegrated implants, however, most are histologic studies in animals, and the effect of soft tissue support from adjacent teeth on the interproximal dimension of the peri-implant mucosa for anterior single implants has not been addressed. This study clinically evaluated the dimensions of the peri-implant mucosa around 2-stage maxillary anterior single implants in humans after 1 year of function. The influence of the peri-implant biotype was also examined. METHODS: Forty-five patients (20 males and 25 females) with a mean age of 47.3 years were included in this study. A total of 45 maxillary anterior single implant crowns with a mean functional time of 32.5 months (range, 12 to 78) were evaluated. The dimensions of peri-implant mucosa were measured by bone sounding using a periodontal probe at the mesial (MI), mid-facial (F), and distal (DI) aspects of the implant restoration and the proximal aspects (MT, DT) of adjacent natural teeth. In addition, the peri-implant biotype was evaluated and categorized as thick or thin. Statistical analysis was performed using an independent t test (P<0.05). RESULTS: The means and standard deviations of the dimensions of peri-implant mucosa at MT, MI, F, DI, and DT were 4.20 +/- 0.77 mm, 6.17 +/- 1.27 mm, 3.63 +/- 0.91 mm, 5.93 +/- 1.21 mm, and 4.20 +/- 0.64 mm, respectively. The dimensions of peri-implant mucosa in the thick biotype were significantly greater than the thin biotype at MT, MI, and DT (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The mean facial dimension of peri-implant mucosa of 2-stage implants is slightly greater than the average dimension of the dentogingival complex. The level of the interproximal papilla of the implant is independent of the proximal bone level next to the implant, but is related to the interproximal bone level next to the adjacent teeth. Greater peri-implant mucosal dimensions were noted in the presence of a thick peri-implant biotype as compared to a thin biotype.
Authors: Kai R Fischer; Andreas Künzlberger; Nikolaos Donos; Stefan Fickl; Anton Friedmann Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2017-05-27 Impact factor: 3.573