This commentary proposes a definition for the term “peri‐implant phenotype” and provides a comprehensive description of all its components.

The main goal of dental therapy is to enhance and maintain the general health and well-being of patients (Chapple & Wilson, 2014). Dental extraction is indicated when teeth cannot be maintained in a status compatible with adequate aesthetics, function and/or health, or for strategic reasons (Kao, 2008 ; Tonetti et al., 2000). Beyond its potential impact in quality of life, tooth extraction causes a local physiologic disruption that results in an initial inflammatory response and, subsequently, a variable degree

No abstract

Queiruga for your assistance in developing the measurement protocol and for providing training on GeoMagic software. Thank you to Kyle Bennett for his technical support in milling the surgical guides. Thank you to my co-residents for your help and sharing practical suggestions throughout the years of my study. I am also grateful to all the faculty, staff and dental assistants for their support and assistance.

Background There is limited information on the need for bone augmentation in the context of delayed implant placement whether alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) is previously performed or not. The primary aim of this retrospective cohort study was to evaluate the efficacy of ARP therapy after tooth extraction compared with unassisted socket healing (USH) in reducing the need for ancillary bone augmentation before or at the time of implant placement. Methods Adult subjects that underwent non‐molar single tooth extraction with or without simultaneous ARP therapy were included in this study. Cone beam computed tomography scans obtained before tooth extraction and after a variable healing period were used to record the baseline facial bone thickness and to virtually plan implant placement according to a standard method. A logistic regression model was used to evaluate the effect of facial alveolar bone thickness upon tooth extraction and baseline therapy (USH or ARP) on the need for additional bone augmentation, adjusting for several covariates (i.e., age, sex, baseline KMW, and tooth type). Results One hundred and forty subjects that were equally distributed between both baseline therapy groups constituted the study population. Implant placement was deemed virtually feasible in all study sites. Simultaneous bone augmentation was considered necessary in 60% and 11.4% of the sites in the USH and ARP group, respectively. Most of these sites (64.2% in the USH group and 87.5% in the ARP group) exhibited a thin facial bone phenotype (<1 mm) at baseline. Logistic regression revealed that the odds of not needing ancillary bone augmentation were 17.8 times higher in sites that received ARP therapy. Furthermore, the need for additional bone augmentation was reduced 7.7 times for every 1 mm increase in facial bone thickness, regardless of baseline therapy. Conclusions Based on a digital analysis, ARP therapy, compared with USH, and thick facial alveolar bone largely reduce the need for ancillary bone augmentation at the time of implant placement in non‐molar sites.