The influence of the masticatory mucosa on the peri‐implant soft tissue condition

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the soft tissue conditions at osseo-integrated oral implants in relation to the width of masticatory mucosa. Thirty-nine patients who had received a full-arch fixed bridge reconstruction > or = 10 years ago or a partial reconstruction > or = 5 years ago on a total of 171 implants ad modum Brånemark were included in the study. The examinations involved assessments of plaque, gingivitis, bleeding on probing, probing depth, width of masticatory mucosa and marginal tissue mobility. Simple correlation analysis as well as multiple regression analysis were performed to evaluate relationships between recorded parameters. The results showed that 24% of the sites were lacking masticatory mucosa, and an additional 13% of the implants had a width of less than 2 mm. Mobility of the facial marginal soft tissue, i.e., lack of an attached portion of masticatory mucosa, was observed at 61% of all implants. No major differences in the clinical parameters examined were found between sites with and without an "adequate" width of masticatory mucosa. Multiple regression analyses revealed that neither the width of masticatory mucosa nor the mobility of the border tissue had a significant influence on (i) the standard of plaque control or (ii) the health condition of the peri-implant mucosa, as determined by bleeding on probing. Hence, the study failed to support the concept that the lack of an attached portion of masticatory mucosa may jeopardize the maintenance of soft tissue health around dental implants.

Single-blind randomized clinical trial to evaluate clinical and radiological outcomes after one year of immediate versus delayed implant placement supporting full-arch prostheses

“…While Wennström et al (25) have reported that keratinized mucosa does not significantly influence oral hygiene status and soft tissue health, Chung et al (24) have found that the absence of adequate keratinized mucosa in dental implants, especially in posterior implants, was associated with higher plaque accumulation and gingival inflammation but not with increased annual bone loss.…”

Is the presence of keratinized mucosa associated with periimplant tissue health? A clinical cross-sectional analysis

“…The importance of keratinized mucosa (KM) surrounding the implant as a barrier against microorganisms and subgingival plaque as a factor for long-term success is discussed [7,8]. KM includes the gingival margin and the mucogingival junction [9].…”

“…Hitherto the influence of KM on periimplant health remains to be discussed controversial [8,23,24]. One clinical study investigating implants failed to show the influence of the existence of KM on periimplant soft tissue health [23].…”

Various Techniques to Increase Keratinized Tissue for Implant Supported Overdentures: Retrospective Case Series

“…Two millimeters wide band of keratinized tissue has been considered clinically desirable to provide a soft tissue seal around natural teeth [5]. However, controversy still remains over the necessity for a band of keratinized tissue around dental implants [6–9]. The role of dental plaque in the etiology of peri-implant diseases is well documented in the literature [10, 11].…”

“…Conversely, some authors have claimed that, with adequate plaque control, peri-implant tissues can be maintained in a healthy state with a minimum amount of keratinized tissue [6–9]. …”