Surgical and Prosthetic Management of Interproximal Region With Single‐Implant Restorations: 1‐Year Prospective Study

Romeo, Eugenio; Lops, Diego; Rossi, Alessandro; Storelli, Stefano; Rozza, Roberto; Chiapasco, Matteo

doi:10.1902/jop.2008.070431

Cited by 114 publications

(104 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For aesthetic reasons and proper appearance of the interproximal papilla, an interimplant and an interimplant-tooth distances of 3 mm and 3 to 4 mm have been recommended, respectively. 28- 31 A thin soft tissue biotype of ,2-mm thickness has often been associated with thinner underlying bone, angular bone defects, increased susceptibility to the loss of papilla after immediate implant placement, and is more prone to recession in response to trauma and bacteria than a thick biotype. 32 Consequently, a thin soft tissue biotype affects the implant success, particularly when immediate loading is the treatment of choice.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Labial Bone Thickness in Area of Anterior Maxillary Implants Associated with Crestal Labial Soft Tissue Thickness

Borzabadi‐Farahani

2012

Implant Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Labial Bone Thickness in Area of Anterior Maxillary Implants Associated with Crestal Labial Soft Tissue Thickness

Borzabadi‐Farahani

2012

Implant Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A maximum value was observed in the P1 maxillary incisors, while a minimum was found in the B1 maxillary central incisors, confirming that the force tolerance for the bite force in the P1 maxillary central incisors was weaker than that in other types, and the force tolerances of the B1 and B2 incisors were relatively good [11]. In addition, the analysis of the equivalent stresses at the four lines showed that the M1 and P1 maxillary central incisors showed a sudden decrease in the buccal, lingual, mesial, and distal equivalent stresses at 1-19 mm below the CEJ, while the change from the 2 mm below the CEJ to the apex was gradual, with a sharply declining trend in the higher position.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 61%

“…The mandibular database for the Chinese population shows that the maxillary central incisor differs inside the alveolar bone [4,11]. Its major axis and the maxillary major axis are generally neither in the same direction nor parallel.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative analysis of the stress distribution in five anatomical types of maxillary central incisor

Sun

et al. 2017

THC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. BACKGROUND:The maxillary central incisor is one of the most important anatomical indicators in esthetics, and stress distribution may vary among its five anatomical views (labial, palatal, mesial, distal, and incisal). OBJECTIVE: To compare stress distribution among the five anatomical views of the maxillary central incisor under loading force at five angles and to observe and analyze the stress distribution in the dentin and periodontal ligament. METHODS: We established three-dimensional finite element models of the five different views, which simulated the bite force with a static load force at 0• , 30• , 45• , 60• , and 90• . The stress and displacement values for the cementoenamel junction (CEJ)-apical labial, palatal, mesial, and distal and the equivalent stress values on the periodontal ligament of the maxillary central incisor were calculated. RESULTS: As the angle increased, the equivalent stress on the periodontal ligament, overall tooth displacement, equivalent stress, and displacement over the four views increased. The peaks of equivalent stress over the four views appeared within 0.8-17 mm below the CEJ, although all equivalent stress values decreased while approaching the peak. Within 1-19 mm below the CEJ, the equivalent stress over the M1 and P1 views of the maxillary central incisor decreased substantially. CONCLUSION: The peaks of the equivalent stress over the M1 and P1 views of the maxillary central incisor and their stress distribution were lower than those of the other three types. Our findings provided theoretical data on the biomechanics of this esthetically important tooth, which may be useful during implantation of missing maxillary central incisors.

show abstract

“…According to the Miller gingival recession classification [3], gingival recession was classified: Class I, gingival recession does not exceed the mucogingival junction, no loss of bone or soft tissue is observed in adjacent tooth space; Class II, gingival recession exceeds the mucogingival junction, no loss of bone or soft tissue is observed in adjacent tooth space; Class III, gingival recession does not exceed the mucogingival junction, and there is a loss of periodontal tissue in adjacent teeth; Class IV, gingival recession exceeds the mucogingival junction, and there is a loss of periodontal tissue in adjacent teeth. We used probing transparency in the sulcus [12] to determine gingival biotype.…”

Section: Data Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prevalence of gingival recession after orthodontic treatment of infraversion and open bite

Qing

et al. 2018

J Orofac Orthop

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeAim of the present study was to investigate the prevalence of gingival recession and related factors in teeth with low occlusal function (open bite and infraversion) after orthodontic treatment.MethodsFrom January 2014 to December 2017, 403 patients received orthodontic treatment. Their gingival recession and related factors before and after treatment were retrospectively analyzed.ResultsThe prevalence of gingival recession in patients with infraversion and open bite after orthodontic treatment were 80.6 and 75.0%, respectively; these values were 43.4 and 47.5% before treatment, respectively. Notably, the Miller index of gingival recession increased after orthodontic treatment (P < 0.05). The risk of gingival recession in patients with infraversion or open bite after orthodontic treatment was remarkably higher than the risk in other patients (odds ratio [OR] = 16.712 and 5.073, respectively); the gingival recession rate was related to treatment with tooth extraction (OR = 2.043), as well as gingival biotype (OR = 0.341) and gingival index (GI) before orthodontic treatment (OR = 97.404; P < 0.05).ConclusionsPatients with these two types of low occlusal function are more likely to exhibit gingival recession after orthodontic treatment. Moreover, the prevalence of gingival recession after orthodontic treatment is higher among patients who have undergone tooth extraction during orthodontic treatment, and among those who exhibit thin gingival biotype and high gingival index before orthodontic treatment.

show abstract

Surgical and Prosthetic Management of Interproximal Region With Single‐Implant Restorations: 1‐Year Prospective Study

Cited by 114 publications

References 23 publications

Labial Bone Thickness in Area of Anterior Maxillary Implants Associated with Crestal Labial Soft Tissue Thickness

Labial Bone Thickness in Area of Anterior Maxillary Implants Associated with Crestal Labial Soft Tissue Thickness

Comparative analysis of the stress distribution in five anatomical types of maxillary central incisor

Prevalence of gingival recession after orthodontic treatment of infraversion and open bite

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About