Flapless Postextraction Socket Implant Placement: The Effects of a Platform Switch–Designed Implant on Peri-implant Soft Tissue Thickness—A Prospective Study

Manfredini

et al. 2021

JCM

To verify the influence of platform-switching (PS) on soft tissue behavior by comparing the soft tissue stability around implants with and without PS, during three years of follow-up. The study included patients treated with fixed dentures supported by implants with an internal connection. The radiographic distance between the first bone-to-implant contact (FBIC) and the implant shoulder was assessed. Additionally, the presence of keratinized facial mucosa and the prosthetic crown height (TH) were monitored for three years from the delivery of the definitive crown. These parameters were measured for two different groups: platform-switched implants in the PS group and non-platform-switched (NPS) implants in the NPS group. Seventy-seven implants were considered in the statistical analysis. After three years, the overall FBIC mean value was 0.31 ± 1.00 mm. However, the mean FBIC was 0.66 ± 0.97 mm for the NPS group and −0.05 ± 0.91 mm for the PS group. Moreover, a mean recession of 0.54 ± 1.39 mm was measured for the NPS group, whereas a mean coronal migration of 0.17 ± 0.95 mm was measured for the PS group. A significant correlation was also found between the presence of PS and ΔTH (p ≤ 0.01) over the three years of follow-up. The absence or presence of platform-switching would appear to affect the tendency of the gingival buccal margin towards recession or creeping. Additionally, implant-abutment platform-switching seems to help prevent peri-implant soft tissue recession over time when compared to implants without PS.

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Behavior of Soft Tissue around Platform-Switched Implants and Non-Platform-Switched Implants: A Comparative Three-Year Clinical Study

Manfredini

et al. 2021

JCM

“…It has been shown in animal and human clinical studies that thin vertical tissue thickness is associated with bone loss during establishment of peri‐implant mucosa when the implant is placed at the level of osseous crest . The effect of the nonmatched diameter implant on a thin soft tissue biotype remains to be determined . Even with thicker peri‐implant mucosal tissue, a microgap‐related inflammatory response is evident, leading to greater crestal bone remodeling than with supracrestal implant placement …”

Section: Emergence Of Esthetics In Implant Therapymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…27,28 The effect of the nonmatched diameter implant on a thin soft tissue biotype remains to be determined. [28][29][30] Even with thicker peri-implant mucosal tissue, a microgap-related inflammatory response is evident, leading to greater crestal bone remodeling than with supracrestal implant placement. 31 Looking forward, novel abutment and supracrestal componentrelated features will be used to better manage peri-implant and peri-abutment soft tissue attachments.…”

Section: Emerg En Ce Of E S the Ti C S In Impl Ant Ther Apymentioning

confidence: 99%

Advances in implant therapy in North America: Improved outcomes and application in the compromised dentition

Saito

Aichelmann-Reidy

Oates

2019

Periodontology 2000

Self Cite

Advances in dental implant therapy have strengthened our understanding of the management of the implant‐soft tissue interface, with site‐specific implications ranging from marginal tissue management and esthetics to immediate placement and restoration, and extend to patient‐level implications of systemic conditions. The advancements in implant therapy have placed an increased emphasis on patient‐centered outcomes. In this paper, the following conclusions can be drawn: improvements in both esthetics and long‐term maintenance have been guided by the study of the marginal peri‐implant tissues leading to innovations in implant design along the implant‐abutment interface. Patient expectations for simple and realistic time intervals for treatment have promoted the use of immediate implant placement and restoration. The expansion of implant therapy offers implant options for patients with medical conditions, with one in particular, diabetes mellitus a focus of this paper. Studies on patients with diabetes are supporting the development of evidence‐based treatment considerations with broader application and greater benefits for the use of implant therapy across a larger patient population. This paper is not intended to offer a comprehensive review, but offers a representative review of some of the many contributions of USA and North American clinicians to the global scientific dialogue that has guided the development of dental implant therapy.

“…In fact, no statistically significant differences were found for ∆MBL one, three and five at one, three and five years after loading between implant connections (p < 0.05), and statistically significant differences were found for PD between EH and IC implants (1 year follow-up) −0.53 (95%CI −0.82 to −0.24, p = 0.0004). On the contrary, the role of platform switching in implant abutment is still unclear [24,25].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Treatment of Full and Partial Arches with Internal-Conical-Connection Dental Implants: Clinical Results after 5 Years of Follow-Up

et al. 2020

The aim of the present investigation is to evaluate the implant therapy outcomes over a period of 5 years and to analyze several patient risk factors influencing the stability of the peri-implant tissues. Seventy-eight patients were consecutively treated between 2009 and 2017 and restored with implant-supported fixed prostheses. The following inclusion criteria were considered: partial or complete edentulism; residual bone volume of at least 3.3 mm in diameter and 8 mm in length; a favorable relationship between maxilla and mandible; at least a minimum 5 year follow-up for each implant included in the statistical analysis. Intraoral radiographs were taken at implant loading and every 12 months during the follow-up visits. They were subsequently stored on a personal computer and analyzed to determine the changes in bone level. Seventy-eight patients receiving 209 implants completed a minimum follow-up period of 5 years. One-hundred dental implants were inserted in the maxilla while 109 were placed in the mandible. Eleven (14.1%) out of 78 treated patients who received 29 (13.9%) dental implants were considered as drop-outs. On the whole, peri-implantitis was diagnosed in three implants. The average final pocket probing depth at implant level was 2.5 ± 1.2 mm. The average final bone loss after 5 years was 0.3 ± 0.4 mm, both at the mesial and distal aspect of the implant. The effects of the prosthesis type, sex and implant site did not statistically influence the marginal bone loss; on the contrary, a statistically significant difference regarding marginal bone loss was detected between smoker and non-smoker patients (p = 0.021). Implants with internal-conical abutment connection showed stable peri-implant bone levels at the medium-term follow-up. Nevertheless, further prospective long-term clinical studies are necessary to confirm these data.