Carl E Misch1, Khalaf F Al-Shammari, Hom-Lay Wang. 1. Department of Periodontology/Prevention/Geriatrics, School of Dentistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA. misch@info.com
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this pilot study is to propose a technique, the split-finger approach, to preserve/promote papillae formation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-one patients with 39 implants consecutively placed in the maxillary anterior region were evaluated at 6 months to 1 year after prosthodontic restoration. The implants evaluated included 16 single-tooth implants, 1 2-unit implant prosthesis, 2 4-unit tooth implants, 1 6-unit prostheses, and 1 7-unit restoration. The papillae were recorded as 0 = no papillae; 1 = < or =50% of the gingival embrasure height; 2 = >50% but <100% of embrasure height; 3 = 100% closure of the proximal space; and 4 = overgrowth of the interproximal tissue. RESULTS: Data from this pilot study showed no class 0, class 1, or class 4 interproximal papillae after the final restoration. The 16 single-tooth restorations and 32 papillae had an average mesial papilla score of 3 and an average of 2.82 for the distal interproximal space. The average papilla score of the other implant papillae sites were 2.7 at 6 months to 1 year. A lower papilla score was noted in interimplant papillae. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed split-finger technique could serve as a clinically useful alternate procedure to promote/augment papillae formation around dental implants.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this pilot study is to propose a technique, the split-finger approach, to preserve/promote papillae formation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-one patients with 39 implants consecutively placed in the maxillary anterior region were evaluated at 6 months to 1 year after prosthodontic restoration. The implants evaluated included 16 single-tooth implants, 1 2-unit implant prosthesis, 2 4-unit tooth implants, 1 6-unit prostheses, and 1 7-unit restoration. The papillae were recorded as 0 = no papillae; 1 = < or =50% of the gingival embrasure height; 2 = >50% but <100% of embrasure height; 3 = 100% closure of the proximal space; and 4 = overgrowth of the interproximal tissue. RESULTS: Data from this pilot study showed no class 0, class 1, or class 4 interproximal papillae after the final restoration. The 16 single-tooth restorations and 32 papillae had an average mesial papilla score of 3 and an average of 2.82 for the distal interproximal space. The average papilla score of the other implant papillae sites were 2.7 at 6 months to 1 year. A lower papilla score was noted in interimplant papillae. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed split-finger technique could serve as a clinically useful alternate procedure to promote/augment papillae formation around dental implants.