Influence of buccal and palatal bone thickness on post-surgical marginal bone changes around implants placed in posterior maxilla: a multi-centre prospective study

How do the dimensions of peri-implant mucosa affect marginal bone loss in equicrestal and subcrestal position of implants? A 1-year clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

There is evidence that the apico-coronal implant position and the mucosal phenotype can affect the extent of peri-implant bone loss. This clinical trial analyzes the bone remodeling and marginal bone loss that occur around conical-connection implants placed equicrestally and subcrestally, assessing the effect of the peri-implant soft-tissue phenotype.

METHODS

Fifty-one patients received 56 implants of distinct diameters (3.5 mm Ø n = 6; 4.3 mm Ø n = 41; 5 mm Ø n = 9) in the posterior part of the maxilla or mandible. The implants were placed equicrestally, 1 mm subcrestally and >1 mm subcrestally, depending on the initial supracrestal tissue height (STH). After 3 months of non-submerged healing, single metal-ceramic screw-retained implant-supported crowns were placed. Longitudinal measurements of STH, mucosal thickness and keratinized mucosa width (KMW) were made at the time of implant placement (T0), crown placement (T1), and after 3 (T2) and 6 months (T3) of prosthetic loading. At each of these points, a radiographic evaluation of bone remodeling and marginal bone loss was also performed.

RESULTS

STH was significantly greater for implants placed >1 mm subcrestally than for those placed 1 mm subcrestally. After 12 months of follow-up, a very significant (p < 0.001) loss of KMW was observed, in addition to a marginal bone loss of 0.08 ± 0.1, 0.15 ± 0.2, and 0.14 ± 0.2 mm in the groups placed equicrestally, 1 mm subcrestally and >1 mm subcrestally, respectively. After the multiple linear regression, marginal bone loss was found to depend primarily on KMW (β = -0.43), while also being affected by STH (β = 0.32) and implant diameter (β = -0.28).

CONCLUSIONS

Marginal bone loss may be influenced by the position with respect to the bone crest, as well as the KMW, STH, and implant diameter. However, more well-controlled studies are needed to verify these above-mentioned findings with different implant designs and connections.

Simultaneous Implant and Guided Bone Regeneration Using Bovine-Derived Xenograft and Acellular Dermal Matrix in Aesthetic Zone

INTRODUCTION

Implant placement in the maxillary anterior area requires sufficient quantity and quality of both soft and hard tissue. In cases where soft and hard tissues are insufficient, additional regeneration using biomaterials is recommended. Treatment using bovine-derived xenograft and acellular dermal matrix (ADM) may increase bone volume and soft tissue thickness. Case and management: A 65-year-old woman sought help for discomfort and aesthetic issues with her denture, reporting missing teeth (11, 12, 13, 14, and 21) and bone volume shrinkage due to disuse atrophy. Intraoral examination revealed 1 mm gingival thickness. CBCT showed labio-palatal bone thickness of 6.0 mm, 5.8 mm, and 4.7 mm for teeth 21, 12 and 14, respectively. Implant planning and surgical guide fabrication were carried out before the surgery. Surgery included the placement of implants 3.3 mm in diameter and 12 mm in length, with the use of xenograft and ADM. Three months post-op, improvements in soft and hard tissues were observed, with a final prosthesis being a long-span implant-supported bridge.

CONCLUSIONS

Disuse alveolar atrophy causes soft and hard tissue deficiency. The use of xenograft and ADM show favourable results even on a geriatric patient.