What is the effect of soft tissue thickness on crestal bone loss around dental implants? A systematic review

Abstract

At present, there is insufficient evidence to answer the question on the differences in clinical outcome in terms of CBL between implants placed in sites with initial soft tissue thickness <2 mm and those with ≥2 mm. Further, well-designed controlled clinical studies are needed to analyze the effect of soft tissue thickness on the clinical outcomes of dental implants.

Comparison of two different surgical approaches to increase peri‐implant mucosal thickness: A randomized controlled clinical trial

“…Implants placed in sites with thin crestal tissue (<2 mm) that were simultaneously thickened with a soft tissue allograft behaved similarly to sites with initially thick tissue. 19 However, this study considered radiographic marginal bone level changes up to 12 months after implant loading. 4 The type of implant to abutment interface can also influence marginal bone level changes.…”

Adapting the vertical position of implants with a conical connection in relation to soft tissue thickness prevents early implant surface exposure: A 2‐year prospective intra‐subject comparison

“…A recent systematic review scrutinizing the effect of gingival biotype on crestal bone loss concluded that, at present, there is insufficient evidence to determine a causal effect of thin soft tissues on crestal bone loss around dental implants (Akcalı et al., ). On the contrary, another recent systematic review, including meta‐analysis, favoured thick tissues in terms of initial crestal bone maintenance (Suárez‐López Del Amo, Lin, Monje, Galindo‐Moreno, & Wang, ).…”

Influence of supracrestal tissue attachment thickness on radiographic bone level around dental implants: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

“…Our findings are consistent with those of previous reviews. In this regard, a review published by Akcali et al concluded that there is not enough evidence to answer the question about differences in clinical outcome in terms of peri‐implant bone loss between implants placed at sites with initially thin or thick soft tissues. Suárez del Amo et al assessed the effect of soft tissue thickness upon MBL, reporting a WMD of −0.80 mm on pooling data corresponding to crestal and supracrestal implants.…”