Biologic Width around one‐ and two‐piece titanium implants

Abstract

Gingival esthetics around natural teeth is based upon a constant vertical dimension of healthy periodontal soft tissues, the Biologic Width. When placing endosseous implants, however, several factors influence periimplant soft and crestal hard tissue reactions, which are not well understood as of today. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to histometrically examine periimplant soft tissue dimensions dependent on varying locations of a rough/smooth implant border in one-piece implants or a microgap (interface) in two-piece implants in relation to the crest of the bone, with two-piece implants being placed according to either a submerged or a nonsubmerged technique. Thus, 59 implants were placed in edentulous mandibular areas of five foxhounds in a side-by-side comparison. At the time of sacrifice, six months after implant placement, the Biologic Width dimension for one-piece implants, with the rough/smooth border located at the bone crest level, was significantly smaller (P<0.05) compared to two-piece implants with a microgap (interface) located at or below the crest of the bone. In addition, for one-piece implants, the tip of the gingival margin (GM) was located significantly more coronally (P<0.005) compared to two-piece implants. These findings, as evaluated by nondecalcified histology under unloaded conditions in the canine mandible, suggest that the gingival margin (GM) is located more coronally and Biologic Width (BW) dimensions are more similar to natural teeth around one-piece nonsubmerged implants compared to either two-piece nonsubmerged or two-piece submerged implants.

A 5-Year Comparison of Marginal Bone Level following Immediate Loading of Single-ToothImplants Placed in Healed Alveolar Ridgesand Extraction Sockets in the Maxilla

“…MBL values reported in this study were lower compared to other studies with similar observation periods (Boronat et al, 2008;Collaert and De Bruyn, 2008;Testori et al, 2008;Tözüm et al, 2008;Bergkvist et al, 2009;Piao et al, 2009;Song et al, 2009). Bone loss for healed sites (group I) in our study was about 0.266 ± 0.176 mm while with another study it showed an increase of up to 0.78 mm (Ericsson et al, 2000), which can be explained by the formation of the biological width (Hermann et al, 2001). In another reports, with the same implant systems, the mean value of MBL was 0.40 ± 1.43 mm (Cooper et al, 2010) and 0.40 ± 1.51 mm (De Bruyn et al, 2013) for a 3 years observation period.…”

“…The microgap between implant-abutment and disruption of the soft tissue that occurs each time the two are disconnected and reconnected, are thought to influence bone resorption around implant neck. Some amount of bone resorption occurs during the first year of loading (Hermann et al, 2001).…”

Replacing congenitally absent teeth with implants: the importance of orthodontic preparation

“…In an overly coronal situation there will be the esthetic risk of the the exposure of the abutmentimplant interface. Conversely, an overly apical positioning will create an unstable periodontal environment because it will create a sulcus more than 4 mm deep, making it a potential periodontal pocket 10,12 . The proper location for the osseous crest should be no more than 4 to 5 mm from a line passing through the gingival border around the replacement tooth the way it would have with the contra-lateral tooth.…”

“…Two designs are currently in use, one with a supracrestal neck, the other with neck at the level of the crest. The first will have a neck that is located 1.5 mm apical to the line of the cementoenamel junction 1,12 . The design of implants that lie at the crest will have necks 3 to 4 mm apical to the line of the cemento-enamel junction 7,9,10,14,16 .…”

Influência do desing, tratamento de superfície e densidade do substrato na estabilidade primária de implantes odontológicos. Análise por meio de torque de inserção, resistência ao arrancamento e freqüência de ressonância

“…A estabilidade primária é essencial na Implantodontia Odontológica para que ocorra a cicatrização natural e formação óssea efetiva (Morton et al, 2004;Chong et al, 2009), assim como para a manutenção de tecidos duros e moles periimplantares (Hermann et al, 2001;Glauser et al, 2004;Salmória et al, 2008); portanto, é uma condição determinante para a ocorrência da osseointegração Carvalho et al, 2008, Cehreli et al, 2009a, 2009bChong et al, 2009;Browers et al, 2009;Kahraman et al, 2009;Degidi et al, 2010).…”