The results of this radiographic research suggested that implantoplasty was an effective treatment of peri-implant infections and peri-implantitis progression.

Within the limitation of the present study, the peri-implant soft tissue color appears to be different from the soft tissue color around natural teeth, no matter which type of restorative material is selected. When titanium abutment was selected, significantly higher differences were present than those obtained with gold or zirconia abutments. The thickness of the peri-implant soft tissue did not appear to be a crucial factor in the abutment impact on the soft tissue color.

Implants with a small diameter may be used where bone width is reduced or in single-tooth gaps with limited mesiodistal space, such as for the replacement of lateral maxillary or mandibular incisors. The purpose of the present longitudinal study was to compare the prognosis of narrow implants (3.3-mm-diameter) to standard (4.1-mm-diameter) implants. Over a 7-year period, 122 narrow implants were inserted in 68 patients to support 45 partial fixed prostheses (PFD) and 23 single-tooth prostheses (ST). Furthermore, 120 patients received 208 standard implants and were restored with 70 PFD and 50 ST, respectively. Clinical and radiographic assessment data were provided. Six (1.8%) out of 330 implants failed. Cumulative survival and success rates were calculated with life-table analyses processed by collecting clinical and radiographic data. For narrow implants, the cumulative survival rate was 98.1% in the maxilla and 96.9% in the mandible. The cumulative success rate was 96.1% in the maxilla and 92% in the mandible. Conversely, standard-diameter implants showed a cumulative survival rate of 96.8% in the maxilla and 97.9% in the mandible. The cumulative success rate was 97.6% in the maxilla and 93.8% in the mandible. Cumulative survival and success rates of small-diameter implants and standard-diameter implants were not statistically different (P > 0.05). Type 4 bone was a determining failure factor, while marginal bone loss was not influenced by the different implant diameters. The results suggest that small-diameter implants can be successfully used in the treatment of partially edentulous patients.

The combination of surgical and prosthetic plans represents the key factor to optimize predictability in single-implant esthetics. The recommended interproximal distance between the implant and the adjacent tooth is 2.5 to 4 mm. The distance from the contact point to the interdental bone is recommended to be <7 mm. Papilla presence is also correlated with a thick gingival biotype.

The purpose of the following study was to evaluate the medium- to long-term prognosis of implant-supported cantilever fixed prostheses, and to establish to what degree this is influenced by factors such as length, type of cantilever (mesial or distal), and opposite dentition versus cantilever prostheses. This study was performed on a sample of 38 partially edentulous patients treated between January 1994 and March 2001 with 49 partial cantilever fixed prostheses supported by 100 implants. Marginal bone resorption (MBL) has been studied and used as a reference parameter to define therapeutic success. The MBL measurement was made possible by transposing X-ray images of patients selected on a PC and then using a software program. Statistical analysis was carried out for possible correlation between peri-implant bone resorption and the parameters considered in this study: length and type (mesial or distal) of cantilever and opposite dentition to cantilever prostheses. Seven years after loading cantilever prostheses, the overall cumulative implant survival rate (OCSR) was 97%, and the prostheses success rate is 98%. Mesial cantilever prostheses registered a lower success rate (97.1%) than distal cantilever prostheses (100%). Furthermore, a better prognosis was not observed when the opposite dentition of the prostheses comprised natural teeth, or fixed prostheses on natural teeth, when compared with the cases in which opposite teeth were implant-supported fixed prostheses. The authors concluded that medium-term prognosis of implant-supported cantilever fixed prostheses and traditional implant-supported fixed prostheses was comparable. However, a thorough pre-treatment analysis of risk factors regarding implant-supported prosthesis survival is important.