Lorenzo Tavelli1, Shayan Barootchi1, Jad Majzoub1, Rafael Siqueira1, Gustavo Mendonça2, Hom-Lay Wang1. 1. Department of Periodontics & Oral Medicine, University of Michigan School of Dentistry, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. 2. Department of Biologic and Materials Sciences, Division of Prosthodontics, University of Michigan School of Dentistry, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate techniques for assessing soft tissue alterations at implant sites and compare the traditionally utilized methods to the newer three-dimensional technologies emerging in the literature. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A comprehensive search was performed to identify interventional studies reporting on volumetric changes at implant sites following different treatments. RESULTS: Seventy-five articles were included the following: 30 used transgingival piercing alone, one utilized calliper, six with ultrasonography, six on cone-beam computed tomography, and 32 utilized optical scanning and digital technologies. Optical scanning-based digital technologies were the only approach that provided 'volumetric changes,' reported as volumetric variation in mm3 , or the mean distance between the surfaces/mean thickness of the reconstructed volume. High variability in the digital analysis and definition of the region of interest was observed. All the other methods reported volume variation as linear dimensional changes at different apico-coronal levels. No studies compared volumetric changes with different approaches. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the emergence of optical scanning-based digital technologies for evaluating volumetric changes, a high degree of variation exists in the executed workflow, which renders the comparison of study results not feasible. Establishment of universal guidelines could allow for volumetric comparisons among different studies and treatments.
AIM: To evaluate techniques for assessing soft tissue alterations at implant sites and compare the traditionally utilized methods to the newer three-dimensional technologies emerging in the literature. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A comprehensive search was performed to identify interventional studies reporting on volumetric changes at implant sites following different treatments. RESULTS: Seventy-five articles were included the following: 30 used transgingival piercing alone, one utilized calliper, six with ultrasonography, six on cone-beam computed tomography, and 32 utilized optical scanning and digital technologies. Optical scanning-based digital technologies were the only approach that provided 'volumetric changes,' reported as volumetric variation in mm3 , or the mean distance between the surfaces/mean thickness of the reconstructed volume. High variability in the digital analysis and definition of the region of interest was observed. All the other methods reported volume variation as linear dimensional changes at different apico-coronal levels. No studies compared volumetric changes with different approaches. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the emergence of optical scanning-based digital technologies for evaluating volumetric changes, a high degree of variation exists in the executed workflow, which renders the comparison of study results not feasible. Establishment of universal guidelines could allow for volumetric comparisons among different studies and treatments.