BACKGROUND: Procedures to improve peri-implant soft-tissue outcomes of single, immediately placed implants are a topic of interest. This systematic review investigates the effect of various surgical and restorative interventions on implant mid-buccal mucosal level. METHODS: An electronic search of five databases (January 1990 to December 2012) and a manual search of peer-reviewed journals for relevant articles were performed. Randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs), prospective cohort studies, and case series with at least nine participants were included, with data on midfacial mucosal recession (MR) of immediately placed implants following various surgical and restorative interventions with a follow-up period of at least 6 months. RESULTS: Thirty-six studies, eight RCTs, one cohort study, and 27 case series were eligible. Six interventions were identified and reviewed: 1) palatal/lingual implant position; 2) platform-switched abutments; 3) flapless approach; 4) bone grafts to fill the gap between buccal plate and fixture; 5) connective tissue grafts; and 6) immediate provisionalization. Three studies consistently showed that palatally/lingually positioned implants had significantly less MR when using tissue-level implants. Mixed results were reported for interventions 2, 3, 5, and 6. One study was available for intervention 4 and did not show a benefit. CONCLUSIONS: Some interventions might be adopted to reduce the amount of MR on implants with the immediate placement approach, as suggested by the included studies, with various levels of evidence. The conflicting results among studies might be a result of differences in patient and site characteristics, e.g., tissue biotype and buccal plate thickness. Therefore, the use of these interventions might be reserved for patients with moderate to high risk of esthetic complications.
BACKGROUND: Procedures to improve peri-implant soft-tissue outcomes of single, immediately placed implants are a topic of interest. This systematic review investigates the effect of various surgical and restorative interventions on implant mid-buccal mucosal level. METHODS: An electronic search of five databases (January 1990 to December 2012) and a manual search of peer-reviewed journals for relevant articles were performed. Randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs), prospective cohort studies, and case series with at least nine participants were included, with data on midfacial mucosal recession (MR) of immediately placed implants following various surgical and restorative interventions with a follow-up period of at least 6 months. RESULTS: Thirty-six studies, eight RCTs, one cohort study, and 27 case series were eligible. Six interventions were identified and reviewed: 1) palatal/lingual implant position; 2) platform-switched abutments; 3) flapless approach; 4) bone grafts to fill the gap between buccal plate and fixture; 5) connective tissue grafts; and 6) immediate provisionalization. Three studies consistently showed that palatally/lingually positioned implants had significantly less MR when using tissue-level implants. Mixed results were reported for interventions 2, 3, 5, and 6. One study was available for intervention 4 and did not show a benefit. CONCLUSIONS: Some interventions might be adopted to reduce the amount of MR on implants with the immediate placement approach, as suggested by the included studies, with various levels of evidence. The conflicting results among studies might be a result of differences in patient and site characteristics, e.g., tissue biotype and buccal plate thickness. Therefore, the use of these interventions might be reserved for patients with moderate to high risk of esthetic complications.
Authors: Sara Bakkali; María Rizo-Gorrita; Manuel-María Romero-Ruiz; José Luis Gutiérrez-Pérez; Daniel Torres-Lagares; Maria Ángeles Serrera-Figallo Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2021-01-29 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Hsun-Liang Chan; Khaled Sinjab; Ming-Pang Chung; Yi-Chen Chiang; Hom-Lay Wang; William V Giannobile; Oliver D Kripfgans Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-02-08 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Paolo De Angelis; Paolo Francesco Manicone; Giulio Gasparini; Silvio De Angelis; Margherita Giorgia Liguori; Ilaria De Filippis; Antonio D'Addona Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2021-01-05 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Martina Stefanini; Matteo Sangiorgi; Diego Bianchelli; Pietro Bellone; Federico Gelpi; Daniele De Santis; Giovanni Zucchelli Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-08-25 Impact factor: 4.964
Authors: Rosa Rojo; Juan Carlos Prados-Frutos; Ángel Manchón; Jesús Rodríguez-Molinero; Gilberto Sammartino; José Luis Calvo Guirado; Rafael Gómez-de Diego Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2016-07-19 Impact factor: 3.411