No abstract

Purpose: This case series illustrates a simplified soft tissue management, namely, the subperiosteal peri-implant augmented layer (SPAL), to increase hard and soft tissue dimensions at the most coronal portion of an implant. Materials and Methods: Twenty-seven implants in 16 patients presenting either a buccal bone dehiscence or a thin (< 1 mm) buccal cortical bone plate (BCBP) were consecutively treated. Briefly, a split-thickness flap (namely, the mucosal layer) was raised on the buccal aspect. Then, the periosteal layer was elevated from the bone crest. A full-thickness flap was elevated on the oral aspect. After implant site preparation, a xenograft was used to fill the space between the periosteal layer and the BCBP and/or exposed implant surface and, if present, to completely correct the bone dehiscence. The periosteal layer was sutured to the oral flap. The mucosal layer was coronally advanced and sutured to submerge both the graft and the implants. At 3 to 6 months, a re-entry procedure for implant exposure was performed. Results: Healing was uneventful, with no signs of infection in all cases. A wound dehiscence was observed in three implants in two patients at 2 weeks postsurgery. Out of 15 implants showing an initial bone dehiscence, 12 implants (80%) showed a complete resolution, with a subperiosteal tissue thickness (SPTT) at the time of re-entry of 3.1 ± 1.0 mm. Three implants presented a residual dehiscence of 1 mm (two implants) or 2 mm (one implant), with a SPTT of at least 2 mm. Out of 12 implants showing a thin BCBP at implant placement, 10 implants (90%) revealed a SPTT ≥ 2 at the time of re-entry. Two implants revealed a SPTT of 1 mm. Conclusion: The SPAL technique represents a valuable simplified surgical approach associated with a low rate of complications in the treatment of periimplant bone dehiscence and in the horizontal augmentation of peri-implant tissue thickness. J

Objectives: To assess peri-implant tissue conditions on the short term in patients receiving the Sub-periosteal Peri-implant Augmented Layer (SPAL) technique and in patients with adequate thickness (≥2 mm) of the peri-implant buccal bone plate (PBBP) at placement. Methods: Patients where either a dehiscence defect or thin PBBP at implant placement was corrected by SPAL technique (SPAL dehiscence and SPAL thin groups, respectively) and patients presenting a residual PBBP thickness ≥2 mm at implant placement (control group) were retrospectively selected. The number of peri-implant sites positive to bleeding on probing (BoP) at 6 months following prosthetic loading was the primary outcome. Also, height of keratinized mucosa, marginal soft tissue level, Plaque Index, peri-implant probing depth, suppuration on probing, and interproximal radiographic bone level (RBL) were evaluated. Results: Thirty-four patients (11 in the SPAL dehiscence group, 11 in the SPAL thin group, and 12 in the control group) were included. In each SPAL group, 10 patients (90.9%) showed peri-implant tissue thickness ≥2 mm at the most coronal portion of the implant at uncovering. The prevalence (number) of BoP-positive sites was 2, 1, and 0 in the SPAL dehiscence , SPAL thin , and control groups, respectively. RBL amounted to 0.3 mm in the SPAL dehiscence group, 0.2 mm in the SPAL thin group, and 0 mm in the control group. Conclusion: After 6 months of prosthetic loading, patients treated with SPAL technique show limited peri-implant mucosal inflammation in association with shallow PD and adequate KM. At implants receiving SPAL technique, however, interproximal RBL was found apical to its ideal position. K E Y W O R D S bone regeneration, dental implants, oral surgical procedures | 993 TROMBELLI ET aL.

Purpose The aim of the present systematic review was to evaluate the effect of different lateral bone augmentation (LBA) procedures on the complete correction of a peri‐implant bone dehiscence (BD) or fenestration (BF) from implant placement to implant surgical uncovering. Methods Electronic (Medline, Scopus, and Cochrane databases) and hand literature searches were performed for studies including at least one treatment arm where any LBA had been applied to correct a BD/BF at implant placement (T0). Studies where BD/BF was left untreated were also retrieved as negative control. Data from 24 selected articles were used to perform a network meta‐analysis. Based on the proportion of nonresolved BD/BF at implant surgical uncovering (T1), a hierarchy of LBA procedures, and was determined. Spontaneous healing (i.e., exposed implant surface covered by a full‐thickness flap; SELF) was also included in the hierarchy. Resorbable membrane + bone graft (RM + BG) was used as reference group. An analysis on the effect of nonhuman (NHBS) vs human (HBS) derived bone substitutes was also performed. NHBS was used as the reference group. Results No statistically significant differences were found among treatments for the proportion of nonresolved BD/BF. SELF performed substantially worse compared to RM + BG (OR: 5.78 × 10, CI: 4.83 × 10 – 1.3 × 1086). Treatment based on a combination of a graft material and membrane/periosteum appeared to perform slightly better than treatments using graft material or membrane alone. NHBS appeared to perform better than HBS. SELF had the worst effect among all treatments for both BD/BF height reduction (BDH) and BD/BF width reduction (BDW). Nonresorbable membrane (NRM) and patient's own periosteum (PERI) + BG showed greater increases in buccal bone thickness than RM + BG. Conclusion Reconstructive treatment (including use of graft alone, membrane alone, or combinations of grafts and either membrane or patient's own periosteum) of a BD/BF at implant placement favorably and significantly impacts on the probability to obtain complete correction of the BD/BF at implant uncovering when compared to full‐thickness flap repositioning on the BD/BF. When using a bone substitute, a nonhuman derived one may be suggested.

The efficacy of surgical regenerative procedures to treat peri-implantitis lesions has been extensively reviewed. Regenerative treatment showed a variable rate of success, in terms of pocket reduction, gain in bone support, and elimination of signs of infection/inflammation. The aim of the present case report is to illustrate the use of the sub-periosteal peri-implant augmented layer (SPAL) technique to correct peri-implantitis defects Case Presentation: Surgical treatment of three class Ib and one class Ic peri-implantitis lesions in three patients was performed by means of the SPAL technique. A partial-thickness flap was elevated, leaving the periosteal layer on the buccal cortical bone plate. The periosteal layer was in turn elevated to create a pouch, which was used to stabilize a bovinederived xenograft (deproteinized bovine bone mineral) at the peri-implant buccal bone defect. No barrier membrane was used. In case of insufficient dimensions of peri-implant mucosa, a connective tissue graft (CTG) was buccally positioned at the most coronal portion of the implant. Treatment resulted in substantial reconstruction of peri-implant support associated with reduced probing depth and absence of inflammation. Conclusions: SPAL technique with or without additional CTG may be a suitable option to obtain clinical remission of peri-implantitis defects associated with buccal bone dehiscence.