Esthetic complications due to implant malpositions: etiology, prevention, and treatment

Chen, Stephen T.; Buser, Daniel; Dent, Med

doi:10.1002/9781119140474.ch11

Cited by 24 publications

(56 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Apart from experience, factors such as skills and judgement also seem to affect the clinical outcome of implant surgery . Another observation – that esthetic failures are most often caused by an implant malposition – supports such a theory as these complications are iatrogenic in nature. The future will show if this observation of increased complication and failure rates can be confirmed.…”

Section: And Beyond: Current Trends and Open Questionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…An update of these aspects are comprehensively provided in this volume of Periodontology 2000, with a review paper by Chappuis et al (56) including the aspects of socket grafting and ridge-preservation techniques. The expanded knowledge about these biologically driven ridge alterations and the severe vertical bone resorption observed in postextraction sites with a thin-wall phenotype in the anterior maxilla of patients (59) has helped to increase our understanding of the various causes of esthetic complications with severe mid-facial recession of the mucosa in immediate implants (60,63). Since 2003, this topic has been debated and analyzed at three consecutive International Team for Implantology consensus conferences where the classification of treatment options was defined, risk factors for mucosal recessions at immediate implants were identified and selection criteria for the potential treatment options with immediate, early or late implant placement were described (61-63, 65, 102, 155).…”

Section: To 1985: the Scientific Quest For Osseointegration And Its Cmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Buser¹,

Sennerby²,

Bruyn³

2016

Periodontology 2000

Self Cite

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

Section: And Beyond: Current Trends and Open Questionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: To 1985: the Scientific Quest For Osseointegration And Its Cmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Buser¹,

Sennerby²,

Bruyn³

2016

Periodontology 2000

Self Cite

507

358

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[6][7][8][9][10] Such recession is caused either by the lack of a facial bone wall to support the facial mucosa, by a facial malposition of the implant, or by a combination of the two. 11 Two recent studies using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) with immediately placed implants and simultaneous guided bone regeneration (GBR) demonstrated a high percentage of implant sites without a facial bone. 12,13 An alternative to reduce the overall treatment time of implant therapy following tooth extraction is the concept of early implant placement following a soft tissue healing period of 4 to 8 weeks.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Long‐Term Stability of Contour Augmentation With Early Implant Placement Following Single Tooth Extraction in the Esthetic Zone: A Prospective, Cross‐Sectional Study in 41 Patients With a 5‐ to 9‐Year Follow‐Up

Buser

Chappuis

Bornstein

et al. 2013

Journal of Periodontology

Self Cite

176

226

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This prospective cross-sectional study demonstrates stable peri-implant hard and soft tissues for all 41 implants examined and satisfactory esthetic outcomes overall. The follow-up of 5 to 9 years confirmed again that the risk for mucosal recession is low with early implant placement. In addition, contour augmentation with guided bone regeneration was able to establish and maintain a facial bone wall in 95% of patients.

show abstract

“…The etiology of peri‐implant mucosal recessions may be related to various factors such as the gingival biotype (e.g. thick or thin) , the presence of an insufficient width of KAM, the height and thickness of the facial or oral bone wall , an oro‐facial malposition of the implant , the angle of implant fixture, and the implant – abutment and prosthesis connection.…”

Section: Peri‐implant Mucosal Recessionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Coverage of mucosal recessions at dental implants

Sculean¹,

Chappuis²,

Cosgarea³

2016

Periodontology 2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Facial peri-implant mucosal recessions represent an increasing complication in implant dentistry and may negatively affect the esthetic outcome and patient satisfaction. The aim of the present paper is to provide a review on the potential causes of facial peri-implant mucosal recessions and to provide a rationale for treatment along with possible treatment options. The available data indicate that soft tissue augmentation around dental implants is possible, but at present there is no evidence demonstrating that the augmented soft tissues are able to influence the peri-implant bone levels (e.g. to limit peri-implant bone loss). Therefore, the rationale to cover or correct peri-implant mucosal recessions are (i) to optimize the possibility for performing an adequate level of oral hygiene, and (ii) to improve esthetics. At present, there is very limited evidence supporting any specific treatment modality for covering peri-implant soft tissue recessions. The limited available data indicate that only shallow peri-implant mucosal recessions (e.g. up to 2 mm) may be treated successfully by means of a coronally advanced flap and subepithelial connective tissue graft or with guided bone regeneration, while no data are available supporting the possibility of covering deep and large peri-implant mucosal recessions.

show abstract

Esthetic complications due to implant malpositions: etiology, prevention, and treatment

Cited by 24 publications

References 26 publications

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

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

Long‐Term Stability of Contour Augmentation With Early Implant Placement Following Single Tooth Extraction in the Esthetic Zone: A Prospective, Cross‐Sectional Study in 41 Patients With a 5‐ to 9‐Year Follow‐Up

Coverage of mucosal recessions at dental implants

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About