Implant Associated Soft Tissue Defects in the Anterior Maxilla

Anderson, Lauren E.; Inglehart, Marita R.; El-Kholy, Karim; Eber, Robert; Wang, Hom Lay

doi:10.1097/id.0000000000000122

Cited by 26 publications

(108 citation statements)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The full-text assessment was performed for 66 studies. Based on predetermined inclusion criteria, 19 articles were included in the qualitative analysis (Anderson et al, 2014;Baldi et al, 2020;Bianchi & Sanfilippo, 2004;Cairo et al, 2017;De Bruyckere et al, 2020;Fenner et al, 2016;Froum et al, 2015;Huber et al, 2018;Hutton et al, 2018;Lorenzo et al, 2012;Roccuzzo et al, 2016Roccuzzo et al, , 2019Schallhorn et al, 2015;Thoma et al, 2016Thoma et al, , 2020Vellis et al, 2019;Wiesner et al, 2010;Zucchelli et al, ,2013Zucchelli et al, , , 2018. The reason for exclusion of the 47 records is reported in the Appendix (Table 1).…”

Section: Search Results and Study Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Other studies have compared PROMs of autogenous grafts vs. substitutes, and reached either similar or conflicting results (Anderson et al, 2014;Huber et al, 2018;Lorenzo et al, 2012;Thoma et al, 2016;Vellis et al, 2019). However, a comprehensive review focusing on PROMs following peri-implant soft tissue grafting procedures has not yet been performed.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Patient‐reported outcome measures following soft‐tissue grafting at implant sites: A systematic review

Stefanini

Tavelli

Barootchi

et al. 2021

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To review the available literature on patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) following soft tissue augmentation at implant sites. Materials and Methods A comprehensive electronic and manual search was performed to identify clinical studies that involved soft tissue augmentation around dental implants and reported PROMs, including post‐operative morbidity, painkillers intake, quality of life, aesthetics and satisfactions. Results Nineteen articles were included in the qualitative analysis. Autogenous grafts (free gingival graft and connective tissue graft), acellular dermal matrix and xenogeneic collagen matrix were utilized, either with a bilaminar‐ or an apically positioned flap approach. PROMs reported in the literature included perceived hardship of the procedure and pain during the surgery, post‐operative morbidity, painkillers intake, number of days with discomfort, satisfaction, aesthetic evaluation, quality of life and willingness to undergo the treatment again. Most of the included studies showed similar PROMs between autogenous grafts and substitutes, in terms of post‐operative morbidity, painkillers intake, quality of life, aesthetic assessment and satisfaction. Nevertheless, a trend towards lower post‐operative discomfort was observed for graft substitutes. High scores for patient satisfaction and aesthetic evaluation were observed in all the interventions compared to non‐grafted sites. Conclusions PROMs represent a crucial endpoint of clinical studies evaluating the outcomes of soft tissue grafts at implant sites. Most of the studies did not find significant differences in terms of patient morbidity and painkillers between autogenous grafts and substitutes. Soft tissue grafting can enhance patient satisfaction and aesthetic evaluation compared to non‐grafted sites.

show abstract

Section: Search Results and Study Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient‐reported outcome measures following soft‐tissue grafting at implant sites: A systematic review

Stefanini

Tavelli

Barootchi

et al. 2021

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Use of an acellular dermal matrix was associated with impaired wound healing and more exposure compared to autogenous soft tissue grafts, but its volume stability in the long term must be established. 39 Several types of autogenous soft tissue grafts are used to treat peri-implant recession in properly placed implants. Studies report outcomes from CTG removed from the palate using the single incision technique and free gingival grafts that were de-epithelized or removed from the tuberosity.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although there are few prospective studies that address this type of defect, partial to full coverage may be expected depending on the extent of the clinical alteration and overall prognosis. 2,12,38,39 Shibli et al 40 proposed one of the first published methods to treat PIR in 2004 and reported that recession was successfully treated by using a combination of prosthetic and surgical procedures. The abutment diameter and provisional were initially reduced in its facial aspect followed by a coronally advanced flap (CAF) that was associated with a thick CTG graft (Figure 2).…”

Section: Peri-implant Recessionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Treatment of peri-implant soft tissue defects: a narrative review

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Soft tissue defects around dental implants, such as papilla or volume loss, peri-implant recession and alterations of the ridge color and/or texture, lead to esthetic and functional complaints. Treatments of these defects in implants are more demanding than in teeth because peri-implant tissue exhibits different anatomical and histological characteristics. This narrative review discusses the proposed treatments for soft tissue defects around implants in the current literature. Several clinical and pre-clinical studies addressed methods to augment the quantity of the peri-implant keratinized mucosa. Autogenous grafts performed better than soft tissue substitutes in the treatment of soft tissue defects, but there is no clinical consensus on the more appropriate donor area for connective tissue grafts. Treatment for facial volume loss, alterations on the mucosa color or texture and shallow peri-implant recessions are more predictable than deep recessions and sites that present loss of papilla. Correction of peri-implant soft tissue defects may be challenging, especially in areas that exhibit larger defects and interproximal loss. Therefore, the regeneration of soft and hard tissues during implant treatment is important to prevent the occurrence of these alterations.

show abstract