Objectives:The aim of this cross-sectional study was to explore the demographic and educational patterns related to the dentists' first implant dental experience. Material and methods:Participants of a Massive Open Online Course in implant dentistry who have placed and restored implants completed a 25-item online questionnaire investigating their pathway of education and assessing their experience with the "first implant placement." Exploratory analysis included hierarchical clustering using 9 demographic categorical factors.Results: A total of 1015 respondents from 84 countries formed 5 distinct clusters.Age and work experience were dominant clustering traits, decreasing from Cluster 1 to Cluster 5. Clusters 1 and 3 represented "senior" and "younger" general dental practitioners, respectively, whilst Clusters 2 and 4 represented post-graduate educated clinicians. Cluster 5 represented recent graduates. Asia, South America and Africa were over-represented in "younger" clusters. Time in practice was a significant determinant of attitudes, followed by completion of post-graduate education. There were significant differences in reported patterns of challenges and complications depending on dentists' time in practice, age and post-graduate education. Challenge in implant positioning was more frequently identified by "young post-graduate" educated dentists. Recent graduates reported having the fewest complications of all clusters. Obtaining implant education in University settings was most frequently recommended by clusters of dentists with post-graduate education. Conclusions:Time in practice is a parameter to be considered when designing implant education. The absence of structured education and mentorship might lead to inability to properly assess treatment outcomes and identify complications. Quality-assured and practice-directed education is needed at a global level, to support in particular, recent graduates who now seem to engage with implant dentistry early in their career.

Objectives In systematically healthy patients with an implant‐supported fixed restoration (P), what is the influence of thin (E) as compared to thick (C) peri‐implant soft tissues on aesthetic outcomes (O)? Methods Following an a priori protocol, a literature search of six databases was conducted up to August 2020 to identify prospective/retrospective clinical studies on healthy patients with an implant‐supported fixed reconstruction. Measurement of the buccal soft tissue thickness and an aesthetic outcome was a prerequisite, and sites presenting with a buccal soft tissue thickness of <2 mm or shimmering of a periodontal probe were categorized as a thin phenotype. After study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment, random‐effects meta‐analysis of Mean Differences (MD) or Odds Ratios (OR) with their corresponding 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were conducted, followed by sensitivity analyses and assessment of the quality of evidence. Results Thirty‐four unique studies reporting on 1508 patients with 1606 sites were included (9 randomized controlled trials, one controlled trial, 10 prospective cohort studies, 8 cross‐sectional studies, and 6 retrospective cohort studies). The mean difference of the pink aesthetic score (PES) after the follow‐up was not significantly different between thin (<2.0 mm) or thick soft tissues (≥2.0 mm) or phenotypes (12 studies; MD = 0.15; [95% CI = −0.24, 0.53]; p = .46). PES changes during the follow‐up, however, were significantly in favour of thick soft tissues (≥2.0 mm) or phenotypes (p = .05). An increased mean mucosal thickness was associated with an increased papilla index (5 studies; MD = 0.5; [95% CI = 0.1, 0.3]; p = .002) and an increase in papilla presence (5 studies; OR = 1.6; [95% CI = 1.0, 2.3]; p = .03). Thin soft tissues were associated with more recession, −0.62 mm (4 studies; [95% CI = −1.06, −0.18]; p = .006). Patient‐reported outcome measures (patient satisfaction) were in favour of thick soft tissues −2.33 (6 studies; [95% CI = −4.70, 0.04]; p = .05). However, the quality of evidence was very low in all instances due to the inclusion of non‐randomized studies, high risk of bias and residual confounding. Conclusion Within the limitations of the present study (weak study designs and various soft tissue measurements or time‐points), it can be concluded that increased soft tissue thickness at implant sites was associated with more favourable aesthetic outcomes.

AIM The aim of the study was to identify and report outcome measures and methods of assessment on soft-tissue augmentation interventions in the context of dental implant therapy reported in clinical studies published in the last 10 years. MATERIAL AND METHODS The protocol of this PRISMA 2020-compliant systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021252214). A literature search was conducted to identify articles that met the pre-established eligibility criteria. Data of interest, with an emphasis on outcome measures, were extracted. For each outcome, specific methods and timing of assessment were described in detail. Following a critical qualitative analysis of the data, outcome measures were categorized. Primary outcomes were identified and the frequency of reporting in the selected articles was calculated. Additionally, risk of bias assessments were performed for individual articles and primary outcomes. RESULTS Ninety-two articles, of which 39 reported randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 20 reported non-RCTs, and 33 reported case series studies, were selected. Outcome measures were categorized into either investigator-evaluated outcome measures (i.e., clinical, digital imaging, esthetic, histologic, biomarker, and safety) or patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Clinical outcomes were the most frequently reported type of outcome. Considering all categories, the most frequently reported primary outcomes were facial mucosa thickness assessed with clinical methods (22.83%), facial keratinized mucosa width assessed with clinical methods (19.57%), facial mucosal margin position/recession assessed with clinical methods (18.48%), facial mucosa thickness assessed with digital imaging methods (11.96%), facial soft-tissue volume assessed with digital imaging methods (9.78%), and supracrestal tissue height assessed with clinical methods (9.78%). No distinguishable patterns of association between specific types or quality (level of bias) of clinical studies and the choice of primary outcomes were observed. CONCLUSION Clinical research on peri-implant soft-tissue augmentation has progressively increased in the last 10 years. Although clinical outcome measures were the most frequently reported outcomes in the selected literature, trends in the field are indicative of a shift from traditional clinical assessment methods to the use of digital technologies. PROMs were generally underreported but should be considered an integral methodological component in future clinical studies.

Objectives To assess contour changes of peri-implant tissues comparing a one- and a two-piece dental implant system over 12 years. Materials and methods Patients seeking implant therapy were enrolled and randomly allocated to receive implants (a one-piece (STM) or a two-piece (BRA) system). Impressions were taken at the time of insertion of the final reconstruction (BL), after 1 year (FU-1), 5 years (FU-5), and at 12 years (FU-12). Thirty patients were included in the analysis (STM, 16; BRA, 14). Digital scans of casts were superimposed and analyzed in an image analysis program. Measurements included changes of the crown height, contour changes on the buccal side of the implants and the contralateral teeth (control). Results Contour changes at implant sites revealed a loss of − 0.29 mm (STM) and − 0.46 mm (BRA) during an observation period of 12 years. Contour changes at the corresponding tooth sites amounted to − 0.06 mm (STM) and − 0.12 mm (BRA) during the same time period. The implant crown gained 0.25 mm (STM) and 0.08 mm (BRA) in height due to recession of the marginal mucosa. The corresponding gain in crown height at the contralateral tooth sites amounted to 0.36 mm (STM) and 0.10 mm (BRA). Interproximal marginal bone level changes measured − 0.28 mm (STM) and − 1.11 mm (BRA). The mean BOP amounted to 38.8% (STM) and 48.7% (BRA) at the 12-year follow-up (FU-12). Conclusion Minimal changes of the peri-implant soft tissue contour were observed at implant sites over the period of 12 years irrespective of the use of a one- or a two-piece implant system. The differences between the implant sites and corresponding teeth were clinically negligible. Clinical relevance Peri-implant soft tissue stability is of high clinical relevance when monitoring dental implant sites on the long run. Clinical data on the extent of soft tissue changes around different implant systems are scarce. The present RCTs demonstrate minimal changes of the peri-implant soft tissue contour 12 years after implant insertion independent of the use of a one- or a two-piece implant system.

AIM The aim of the study was to identify and report outcome measures and methods of assessment on soft-tissue augmentation interventions in the context of dental implant therapy reported in clinical studies published in the last 10 years. MATERIAL AND METHODS The protocol of this PRISMA 2020-compliant systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021252214). A literature search was conducted to identify articles that met the pre-established eligibility criteria. Data of interest, with an emphasis on outcome measures, were extracted. For each outcome, specific methods and timing of assessment were described in detail. Following a critical qualitative analysis of the data, outcome measures were categorized. Primary outcomes were identified and the frequency of reporting in the selected articles was calculated. Additionally, risk of bias assessments were performed for individual articles and primary outcomes. RESULTS Ninety-two articles, of which 39 reported randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 20 reported non-RCTs, and 33 reported case series studies, were selected. Outcome measures were categorized into either investigator-evaluated outcome measures (i.e., clinical, digital imaging, esthetic, histologic, biomarker, and safety) or patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Clinical outcomes were the most frequently reported type of outcome. Considering all categories, the most frequently reported primary outcomes were facial mucosa thickness assessed with clinical methods (22.83%), facial keratinized mucosa width assessed with clinical methods (19.57%), facial mucosal margin position/recession assessed with clinical methods (18.48%), facial mucosa thickness assessed with digital imaging methods (11.96%), facial soft-tissue volume assessed with digital imaging methods (9.78%), and supracrestal tissue height assessed with clinical methods (9.78%). No distinguishable patterns of association between specific types or quality (level of bias) of clinical studies and the choice of primary outcomes were observed. CONCLUSION Clinical research on peri-implant soft-tissue augmentation has progressively increased in the last 10 years. Although clinical outcome measures were the most frequently reported outcomes in the selected literature, trends in the field are indicative of a shift from traditional clinical assessment methods to the use of digital technologies. PROMs were generally underreported but should be considered an integral methodological component in future clinical studies.