Premium
Reproducibility of Buccal Gingival Profile Using a Custom Pick‐Up Impression Technique: A 2‐Year Prospective Multicenter Study
Author(s) -
Lops Diego,
Bressan Eriberto,
Cea Nicolò,
Sbricoli Luca,
Guazzo Riccardo,
Scanferla Massimo,
Romeo Eugenio
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.919
H-Index - 60
eISSN - 1708-8240
pISSN - 1496-4155
DOI - 10.1111/jerd.12171
Subject(s) - dentistry , medicine , implant , buccal administration , gingival margin , impression , reproducibility , orthodontics , prosthesis , soft tissue , surgery , mathematics , computer science , statistics , world wide web
Abstract Purpose The aim of this study was to transfer the provisional restoration emergence profile to the final implant‐supported restoration and to buccal gingival margin ( BGM ) stability after 2 years of function. Materials and Methods A total of 33 patients were recruited for treatment of single gaps by means of 33 implant‐supported restorations. Fixed provisional crowns were screwed to the fixture and adjusted until the complete peri‐implant soft tissue maturation was achieved. After 12 weeks, a second fixture impression was taken by means of a pick‐up customization technique in order to transfer the clinical aspect of the peri‐implant soft tissues to the master cast. A definitive restoration was delivered. A standardized method from digital photographs was used to assess the gingival margin modification ( BGM ) from the provisional ( P ) to the definitive prosthesis installation at baseline ( D 0), and after 1 ( D 1) and 2 years ( D 2) of function. Also, marginal bone loss ( MBL ) was calculated after 1 ( D 1) and 2 years ( D 2) of definitive restoration function. Results The BGM index at the time of the final restoration installation ( D 0) was 0.12 ± 0.33 mm if compared with the BGM position of the provisional restoration ( P ); it was of 0.12 ± 0.46 mm after 1‐year of follow‐up ( D 1) and of 0.31 ± 0.21 after 2 years of function ( D 2). No significant difference was calculated between measurements in different follow‐up visits ( p > 0.05). No significant MBL was measured between the baseline ( D 0) and the 1‐year follow‐up ( p = 0.816) with a mean MBL value of 0.2 ± 0.1 mm. Similar result was calculated after 2 years ( p = 0.684) with a mean MBL value of 0.3 ± 0.2. Conclusion A modified impression pick‐up may be helpful to reproduce the gingival margin position from the provisional to the definitive restoration. Moreover, the gingival zenith position during the follow‐up period seemed to be stable. Clinical Significance The modification of the standard impression pick‐up technique may contribute to reproducing a natural emergence profile of esthetic implant prosthetic restorations (from the provisional to the definitive restoration.) With this technique, implant soft tissues stability around CAD‐CAM (computer aided design – computer aided manufacturing) abutments can be easily obtained, and the customized abutment shape may better support the scalloped peri‐implant soft tissues architecture, especially in anterior areas.