AIM: The aim of this study was to compare the soft tissue integration of submerged and non-submerged implants by means of periodontal parameter assessments and analysis. MATERIAL AND METHODS:Thirty-one patients, who received 42 non-submerged implants (ITI) and 48 submerged implants (3i), participated in the study. There was no significant difference (P>0.05) between both groups considering gender; educational level; handedness; toothbrushing frequency; the number of auxiliary devices used; and smoking habits. The parameters assessed were gingival index (GI), plaque index (PII), retention index (RI), pocket probing depth (PPD) and keratinized mucosa index. RESULTS: At evaluation, 66.67% of all sites showed a GI of 0; 72.22% a PI of 0, and 93.33% the absence of calculus. The average PPD was 2.56 mm in the non-submerged and 2.70 mm in the submerged group. With regard to the width of keratinized mucosa, 100% of the ITI implants showed a band of keratinized gingiva around the implant, whereas 14.58% in the 3i group showed a complete absence of keratinized mucosa. The intra-examiner reproducibility was 90.96% for all parameters and the Kendall tau-b analysis showed a powerless correlation between the chosen parameters for both studied groups. CONCLUSIONS: The study material showed no major differences between submerged and non-submerged dental implants regarding GI, PII, RI and PPD, except the width of keratinized mucosa. Regarding the presence of keratinized mucosa, there is a need for further longitudinal studies to elucidate a possible benefit of one implant system over the other.
RCT Entities:
AIM: The aim of this study was to compare the soft tissue integration of submerged and non-submerged implants by means of periodontal parameter assessments and analysis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thirty-one patients, who received 42 non-submerged implants (ITI) and 48 submerged implants (3i), participated in the study. There was no significant difference (P>0.05) between both groups considering gender; educational level; handedness; toothbrushing frequency; the number of auxiliary devices used; and smoking habits. The parameters assessed were gingival index (GI), plaque index (PII), retention index (RI), pocket probing depth (PPD) and keratinized mucosa index. RESULTS: At evaluation, 66.67% of all sites showed a GI of 0; 72.22% a PI of 0, and 93.33% the absence of calculus. The average PPD was 2.56 mm in the non-submerged and 2.70 mm in the submerged group. With regard to the width of keratinized mucosa, 100% of the ITI implants showed a band of keratinized gingiva around the implant, whereas 14.58% in the 3i group showed a complete absence of keratinized mucosa. The intra-examiner reproducibility was 90.96% for all parameters and the Kendall tau-b analysis showed a powerless correlation between the chosen parameters for both studied groups. CONCLUSIONS: The study material showed no major differences between submerged and non-submerged dental implants regarding GI, PII, RI and PPD, except the width of keratinized mucosa. Regarding the presence of keratinized mucosa, there is a need for further longitudinal studies to elucidate a possible benefit of one implant system over the other.