Coverage of mucosal recessions at dental implants

Sculean, Anton; Chappuis, Vivianne; Cosgarea, Raluca

doi:10.1111/prd.12178

Cited by 34 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Incorrect implant placement, lack of buccal bone or mucosal thickness, improper case selection for immediate implant placement, and diameter of the implant platform, act as predisposing factors specifically leading to a mucosal recessions on implants . Additionally, the vascularization and composition of the connective tissue around implants (with fibers parallel to the implant surface) that resembles a scar tissue, may negatively impact the surgical outcomes. It may be assumed that the etiology of the PSTD along with the peri‐implant anatomy are the main reasons for the overall low predictability of the traditional surgical approach for treating these mucosal defects …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The peri‐implant mucosa also significantly differs from the periodontal soft tissue. Indeed, the long junctional epithelium, the parallel organization of the connective tissue fibers, the lower number of fibroblasts, and reduced vascularity which are characteristic of the peri‐implant soft tissue, are more similar to a scar tissue than the soft tissue around teeth . These anatomical differences may lead to an inferior PSTD coverage compared with the outcomes usually obtained when treating teeth with the same technique …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Classification of facial peri‐implant soft tissue dehiscence/deficiencies at single implant sites in the esthetic zone

Zucchelli

Tavelli

Stefanini

et al. 2019

Journal of Periodontology

184

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The incidence of a peri‐implant soft tissue dehiscence/deficiency (PSTD) is not a rare finding. Despite multiple previous attempts aimed at correcting the PSTDs, a classification of these conditions has not yet been proposed. This lack in the literature may also lead to discrepancies in the reported treatment outcomes and thus misinform the clinician or the readers. The aim of the present article was therefore to present a classification of peri‐implant PSTD at a single implant site. Methods Four classes of PSTDs were discussed based on the position of the gingival margin of the implant‐supported crown in relation to the homologous natural tooth. In addition, the bucco‐lingual position of the implant head was also taken into consideration. Each class was further subdivided based on the height of the anatomical papillae. Results Subsequently, for each respective category a surgical approach (including bilaminar techniques, the combined prosthetic‐surgical approach or soft tissue augmentation with a submerged healing) was also suggested. Conclusion This paper provides a new classification system for describing PSTDs at single implant sites, with the appropriate recommended treatment protocol.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Classification of facial peri‐implant soft tissue dehiscence/deficiencies at single implant sites in the esthetic zone

Zucchelli

Tavelli

Stefanini

et al. 2019

Journal of Periodontology

184

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The paper of Sculean et al. in the current volume of Periodontology 2000 critically appraises the literature regarding recession coverage. At present, the treatment possibilities for the coverage of peri‐implant soft‐tissue recessions are very limited and it is indicated that only shallow peri‐implant mucosal recessions (e.g.…”

Section: And Beyond: Current Trends and Open Questionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Owing to the increase in the number of implants placed worldwide, it can be anticipated that in the near future, the occurrence of mucosal recessions will also increase. The paper of Sculean et al (183) in the current volume of Periodontology 2000 critically appraises the literature regarding recession coverage. At present, the treatment possibilities for the coverage of peri-implant soft-tissue recessions are very limited and it is indicated that only shallow periimplant mucosal recessions (e.g.…”

Section: And Beyond: Current Trends and Open Questionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modern implant dentistry based on osseointegration: 50 years of progress, current trends and open questions

Buser¹,

Sennerby²,

Bruyn³

2016

Periodontology 2000

507

358

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the 1960s and 1970s, implant-supported prostheses based on subperiosteal or blade implants had a poor reputation because of questionable clinical outcomes and lack of scientific documentation. The change to a scientifically sound discipline was initiated by the two scientific pioneers of modern implant dentistry, Professor P. I. Brånemark from the University of Gothenburg in Sweden and Professor André Schroeder from the University of Bern in Switzerland. Together with their teams, and independently of each other, they laid the foundation for the most significant development and paradigm shift in dental medicine. The present volume of Periodontology 2000 celebrates 50 years of osseointegration. It reviews the progress of implant therapy over the past 50 years, including the basics of implant surgery required to achieve osseointegration on a predictable basis and evolving innovations. The development of bone-augmentation techniques, such as guided bone regeneration and sinus floor elevation, to correct local bone defects at potential implant sites has increased the indications for implant therapy. The paradigm shift to moderately rough implant surfaces resulted in faster and enhanced bone integration and led to improvements in various treatment protocols, such as immediate and early implant placement in postextraction sites, and made various loading protocols possible, including immediate and early implant loading. In the past 15 years, preoperative analysis and presurgical planning improved as a result of the introduction of three-dimensional imaging techniques. Hereby, cone-beam computed tomography offers better image quality with reduced radiation exposure, when compared with dental computed tomography. This opened the door for digital planning and surgical modifications. Over the last 50 years this evolution has facilitated tremendous progress in esthetic outcomes with implant-supported prostheses and improved patient-centered outcomes. This volume of Periodontology 2000 also discusses the current trends and open questions of implant dentistry, such as the potential of digital implant dentistry in the surgical and prosthetic field, the trend for an increasing average age of implant patients and the related adaptations of treatment protocols, and the second attempt to establish ceramic implants using, this time, zirconia as the implant material. Finally, some of the hottest controversies are discussed, such as recent suggestions on bone integration being a potential foreign-body reaction and the evidence-based appraisal of the peri-implantitis debate.

show abstract

“…The novel implant design reduces gingival recession around prosthetic abutments due to platform‐switch applied …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Platform switch hybrid zygoma implants improve prosthetics and marginal bone protection after extra‐sinus placement

Aleksandrowicz

Kusa-Podkańska

Tomkiewicz

et al. 2020

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The aim of our studdy is clinical evaluation of Platform switch hybrid zygoma implants. Materials and Methods 117 zygomatic implants were followed up during this time. They included 55 Brånemark System zygoma implants, 38 Noris implants, and 24 novel iRES hybrid implants with platform switch. Results Bone quality and quantity are the prerequisite for successful implant treatment. Zygomatic implants are intended for patients with severely resorbed maxilla that cannot accommodate conventional implants without prior extensive bone grafting. Such regenerative procedures, like sinus lifts, prolong implant rehabilitation to several months (12–18). Furthermore, extensive grafts are less predictable showing varying degrees of graft resorption. Zygoma implants enable full, often immediate, reconstruction of the upper dental arch without the need for sinus lift treatment. The original zygoma protocol runs the implants through the sinus, requires general anesthesia, and positions the prosthetic platform of the implants on the palate, which makes prosthesis cumbersome. It also induces risk for post‐op sinusitis. Extra‐sinus approach with novel zygoma hybrid implants bypasses sinuses and positions the implant prosthetic platform on the crest allowing for same good prosthetics as on conventional dental implants. Furthermore, crestal threads and a platform‐switch, of the novel zygoma design, increase implant anchorage and minimize marginal bone loss. The study presents evolution of zygoma implant rehabilitation protocol and zygoma implant design in our clinical practice over 15 years (2004‐2019). Conclusion Extra‐sinus zygomatic implant placement lowers the risk of post‐op sinusitis and makes procedure possible to be done in local anesthesia.

show abstract

Coverage of mucosal recessions at dental implants

Cited by 34 publications

References 40 publications

Classification of facial peri‐implant soft tissue dehiscence/deficiencies at single implant sites in the esthetic zone

Classification of facial peri‐implant soft tissue dehiscence/deficiencies at single implant sites in the esthetic zone

Modern implant dentistry based on osseointegration: 50 years of progress, current trends and open questions

Platform switch hybrid zygoma implants improve prosthetics and marginal bone protection after extra‐sinus placement

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About