Implant sites with a band of <2 mm of KM were shown to be more prone to brushing discomfort, plaque accumulation, and peri-implant soft tissue inflammation when compared to implant sites with ≥2 mm of KM.

TiZr and cpTi NDIs presented similar outcomes after 1 year in function in the molar region of the mandible. The results suggest that TiZr and cpTi NDIs may be equally used to support single crowns in the posterior area of the mouth. However, further studies with longer follow-up periods are necessary to confirm these findings.

The healing process around teeth and implants follows a similar sequence of events. Nevertheless, the complete process of healing and maturation of the peri-implant tissues takes longer than around teeth.

Objective The objective of this four‐year cohort prospective study was to evaluate the effect of inadequate access to peri‐implant hygiene on marginal bone level (MBL). Material and Methods Forty‐one partially edentulous patients (16 males and 25 females, aged 49.8 ± 11.9 years) who had implants with at least one year in function were selected. Patients were clinically and radiographically evaluated at three different times: baseline (T0), 2‐year (T1), and 4‐year (T2) follow‐up intervals. At baseline, implants were classified and allocated into two groups: those presenting adequate access (ACC) and inadequate access (no‐ACC) to peri‐implant hygiene. A linear mixed‐effects model for clustered longitudinal data was used to analyze MBL, probing depth (PD), plaque index (PI), and bleeding on probing (BoP). Results Of 131 implants, 74 were considered as having ACC, and 57 as having no‐ACC at T0. Implants in the no‐ACC group presented a statistically greater mean MBL measurement at T2 than implants in the ACC group (p = .011). In the no‐ACC group, a significant reduction in PD from T0 to T1 (p = .019) and from T0 to T2 (p = .010) was observed. Regardless of the group, PI significantly increased at both T1 (p = .00001) and T2 (p = .00004). Regardless of time, the prevalence of BoP was significantly higher in the no‐ACC group than in the ACC group (p = .012). Conclusion Inadequate access to peri‐implant hygiene frequently resulted in more peri‐implant inflammation and MBL over time. Proper accessibility to peri‐implant hygiene should be carefully considered during planning of implant restoration, and patients properly motivated into maintenance care.

The aim of this prospective clinical study was to analyze marginal bone loss around Narrow Diameter Implants (NDIs) in comparison with that of Regular Diameter Implants (RDIs) installed in the posterior region of the jaws after one year of loading with single prostheses. Material and Methods:A total of 21 patients with a mean age of 57.2 years were included in the study. The patients received one implant of each diameter in the maxilla or in the mandible. Panoramic radiographs were realized immediately after prostheses installation (T0) and one year after loading (T1). Measurements were performed from implant shoulder to the first point of bone/implant contact. The differences in marginal bone change between the groups were analyzed by Student t-test for paired samples. A level of 95% of significance was adopted.Results: A total of 42 implants were installed (21 RDIs and 21 NDIs). At the end of the follow-up period (12 months of loading), implant success and survival rates of 100% were observed. The bone loss around implants at T0 was 0.41 (± 0.45) mm for NDIs and 0.47 (± 0.60) mm for RDIs and at T1 was 1.3 (± 0.3) mm for NDIs and 1.24 (± 0.3) mm for RDIs. No statistically significant differences between the groups were found (p>0.05). Conclusion:This study demonstrated that RDIs and NDIs produced similar marginal bone alterations patterns after one year of loading, regardless the implant location, indicating that NDIs may be used in the posterior region of the jaws with single unit prostheses in selected patients.