Premium
Influence of soft tissue grafting, orofacial implant position, and angulation on facial hard and soft tissue thickness at immediately inserted and provisionalized implants in the anterior maxilla
Author(s) -
Noelken Robert,
Geier Jannik,
Kunkel Martin,
Jepsen Søren,
Wagner Wilfried
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
clinical implant dentistry and related research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.338
H-Index - 85
eISSN - 1708-8208
pISSN - 1523-0899
DOI - 10.1111/cid.12643
Subject(s) - soft tissue , medicine , implant , connective tissue , maxilla , dentistry , facial bone , surgery , pathology
Background Resorption of hard and soft tissues following immediate implant insertion is frequently reported. Data regarding the influencing factors on facial tissue thickness are rare. Purpose This retrospective study investigated the impact of connective tissue grafting, the orofacial angulation and position of immediately inserted and provisionalized implants on the facial hard and soft tissue thickness in the anterior maxilla within a 1‐ to 5‐year follow‐up. Material and Methods Implants with the prerequisite of having preoperative and postoperative cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and a follow‐up of 1 to 5 years were included. Facial bone deficiencies were grafted flaplessly with autogenous bone in all sites. In a subgroup of implants additional connective tissue grafting was performed, whereas the remaining implants were not grafted with soft tissue. The orofacial tooth and implant angulation, the change of horizontal position and the facial bone thickness were measured by CBCT, the facial mucosa thickness by an ultrasonic device. Results In total, 76 implants were placed in 55 patients. Sixty‐nine sites showed a facial bone defect. Thirty‐eight received a connective tissue graft additionally. All implants were still in function after a mean follow‐up of 36 months. The mean thickness of the facial mucosa was 1.72 mm at 1 mm, 1.63 mm at 4 mm, 1.52 mm at 6 mm, and 1.66 mm at 9 mm apically to mucosal margin. The bone thickness was 0.02, 0.25, and 0.36 mm initially and 1.32, 1.26, and 1.11 mm finally at 1, 3, and 6 mm apically to implant shoulder level. Mixed model analysis revealed an impact of the preoperative bone status on the facial bone increase. The facial soft tissue thickness was significantly influenced by the gingival biotype. Conclusions The results indicate that an initial severe hard tissue defect allows for significant bone regeneration. The facial soft tissue thickness is primarily influenced by the gingival biotype.