Papilla height in relation to the distance between bone crest and interproximal contact point at single‐tooth implants: A systematic review

Abstract

There is limited evidence that the vertical distance from the base of the interproximal contact point to the crestal bone level seems to affect the interproximal papilla height; that is, the lower is the distance the higher is the percentage of papilla fill. Complete embrasure fill between an implant restoration and the adjacent tooth seems to be correlated with the integrity of the periodontal ligament of the tooth. To reduce the risk of aesthetic failures, interproximal probing on the adjacent teeth should be encouraged before implant placement.

The relationship between dental implant papilla and dental implant mucosa around single‐tooth implant in the esthetic area: A retrospective study

“…The main objective of our study was to evaluate the relationship be- It has been well documented that DIM stability is influenced by the use of GBR and/or CTG (Cardaropoli, Lekholm, & Wennström, 2006;Grunder, 2000;Schneider et al, 2011), the peri-implant phenotype (Evans & Chen, 2008), the buccal bone crest level and thickness (Spray, Black, Morris, & Ochi, 2000), the implant platform level, and the first BIC level (Nisapakultorn et al, 2010). On the other hand, DIP height varies according to the phenotype , the distance from the contact point to the proximal bone crest (Choquet et al, 2001;Cosyn et al, 2012;Roccuzzo et al, 2018), the implant-adjacent tooth distance (Lops et al, 2008;Palmer, Farkondeh, Palmer, & Wilson, 2007;Romeo et al, 2008;Ryser, Block, & Mercante, 2005), the distance between two adjacent implants (Tarnow et al, 2000), and the loading protocols (Benic & Hämmerle, 2014;De Rouck, Collys, & Cosyn, 2009).…”

“…Peri‐implant soft tissue integration is a key clinical parameter in dental implant success (Buser, Chappuis, Belser, & Chen, ; Chen & Buser, ; Thoma et al, ). Soft tissue stability over time in the esthetic area is mandatory to avoid mucosal recession and loss of papilla surrounding dental implants (Cosyn, Sabzevar, & Bruyn, ; Roccuzzo, Roccuzzo, & Ramanuskaite, ). Peri‐implant soft tissue recession has been defined as an apical shift of soft tissue margin with no significant interproximal bone loss and/or adjacent papilla recession (Roccuzzo, Gaudioso, Bunino, & Dalmasso, ).…”

“…Dental implant papilla (DIP) stability has been shown to be associated with the soft tissue phenotype (Romeo et al, ), the distance with the adjacent tooth or implant (Lops, Chiapasco, Rossi, Bressan, & Romeo, ; Tarnow, Cho, & Wallace, ), and the distance between the contact point and the level of the proximal bone crest (Choquet et al, ; Cosyn et al, ; Nisapakultorn et al, ). However, there are still conflicting data on the role of each of these clinical parameters and their interplay (Roccuzzo et al, ).…”

“…However, there are still conflicting data on the role of each of these clinical parameters and their interplay (Roccuzzo et al, 2018).…”

Soft and hard tissue augmentation procedures for promotion of peri‐implant health and aesthetics

“…Twenty‐five international experts in the field of oral tissue regeneration and implant dentistry formed the Osteology Consensus Group (Table ). The current evidence was formulated into four systematic reviews (Ramanauskaite, Roccuzzo, Linkevicius & Schwarz, ; Roccuzzo, Roccuzzo & Ramanauskaite, ; Sanz‐Sánchez et al., ; and Thoma et al., ), which were distributed to the participants in advance, followed by full presentation and discussion during the Consensus Meeting. The participants subsequently split up into two groups for discussion and the preparation of the Consensus Reports.…”