Ignacio Sanz-Martín1, Erik Regidor2, Jan Cosyn3, Daniel B Wiedemeier4, Daniel S Thoma5. 1. Private Practice, Lausanne, Switzerland. 2. Thinking Perio Research, Periocentrum Bilbao, Private Practice, Bilbao, Spain. 3. Department of Periodontology and Oral Implantology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Department of Periodontology and Oral Implantology, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium. 4. Statistical Services, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. 5. Clinic of Reconstructive Dentistry, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Abstract
AIM: To identify the factors associated with buccal peri-implant soft tissue dehiscences (BSTDs) and their frequency of occurrence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, cohort studies, and case series assessing the frequency of occurrence of BSTD were included. BSTD was defined as an apical migration of the peri-implant soft tissues of ≥1 mm from the baseline examination (final restoration) or in comparison with the adjacent or contralateral natural tooth. Frequency distributions of BSTD related to the presence or absence of any surgical, prosthetic, or anatomic factor that may have contributed to the development of BSTD were recorded. Random-effects meta-analyses using odds ratios (OR) were performed to investigate the association of certain factors with the development of BSTD. RESULTS: Twenty-four articles were finally included belonging to 22 clinical investigations. Patients at higher risk of developing BSTD were associated with thin biotype (OR = 2.85 [1.40, 5.8], n = 5, p = .003) and with buccally placed implants (OR = 14.37 [4.58, 45.14], n = 3, p ≤ .001). Patients without connective tissue grafting (CTG) had greater odds of developing BSTD (OR = 9.00 [3.11, 26.02], n = 5, p ≤ .001), while buccal bone plate thickness of <1 mm and immediately placed implants were not associated with greater BSTD (OR = 1.29 [0.35, 4.77], n = 2, p = .704 and OR = 1.56 [0.46, 5.26], n = 4, p = .477, respectively). The frequency of occurrence of BSTD varied across the included studies with a range from 0% to 61%. CONCLUSIONS: Thin tissue biotype and buccally placed implants were associated with BSTD, whereas CTG seemed to have a protective effect. Thin buccal plates and immediately placed implants did not demonstrate a higher risk of BSTD.
AIM: To identify the factors associated with buccal peri-implant soft tissue dehiscences (BSTDs) and their frequency of occurrence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, cohort studies, and case series assessing the frequency of occurrence of BSTD were included. BSTD was defined as an apical migration of the peri-implant soft tissues of ≥1 mm from the baseline examination (final restoration) or in comparison with the adjacent or contralateral natural tooth. Frequency distributions of BSTD related to the presence or absence of any surgical, prosthetic, or anatomic factor that may have contributed to the development of BSTD were recorded. Random-effects meta-analyses using odds ratios (OR) were performed to investigate the association of certain factors with the development of BSTD. RESULTS: Twenty-four articles were finally included belonging to 22 clinical investigations. Patients at higher risk of developing BSTD were associated with thin biotype (OR = 2.85 [1.40, 5.8], n = 5, p = .003) and with buccally placed implants (OR = 14.37 [4.58, 45.14], n = 3, p ≤ .001). Patients without connective tissue grafting (CTG) had greater odds of developing BSTD (OR = 9.00 [3.11, 26.02], n = 5, p ≤ .001), while buccal bone plate thickness of <1 mm and immediately placed implants were not associated with greater BSTD (OR = 1.29 [0.35, 4.77], n = 2, p = .704 and OR = 1.56 [0.46, 5.26], n = 4, p = .477, respectively). The frequency of occurrence of BSTD varied across the included studies with a range from 0% to 61%. CONCLUSIONS: Thin tissue biotype and buccally placed implants were associated with BSTD, whereas CTG seemed to have a protective effect. Thin buccal plates and immediately placed implants did not demonstrate a higher risk of BSTD.