The effect of peri-implant bone exposure on soft tissue healing and bone loss in two adjacent implants

Two adjacent implant-supported restorations in the aesthetic region: A 10-year prospective case series

INTRODUCTION

The treatment outcome of two adjacent implant-supported restorations in the maxillary aesthetic region was assessed regarding peri-implant soft and hard tissues, and satisfaction during a 10-year follow-up period.

METHODS

Twenty patients missing two adjacent teeth in the maxillary aesthetic region and treated with two implant-supported restorations were followed prospectively. The patients' clinical and radiographic parameters, as well as their satisfaction, were scored for a 10-year follow-up period.

RESULTS

Seventeen patients' data were available for the 10-year follow-up. The survival rate of the implants and restorations was 100%. The 10-year mean peri-implant bone change at the side facing the adjacent tooth was +0.11 ± 0.57 mm and at the side facing the adjacent implant was -0.08 ± 0.50 mm. The peri-implant soft tissues were healthy and the patients' satisfaction was high, but the papilla-index showed compromised inter-implant papillae and low Pink Esthetic Scores. These figures were of the same magnitude at all time points.

CONCLUSION

While it is difficult to obtain sufficient inter-implant papillae and satisfactory Pink Esthetic Scores, the initial treatment results remained stable and the patients were satisfied with the final result throughout the 10-year follow-up period.

Factors Influencing the Presence of Papilla between Adjacent Implants and between a Tooth and an Implant

Aim

The aim this study was to evaluate the factors that influence the presence or absence of the interproximal papilla between implants adjacent to the teeth or other implants, through clinical and radiographic evaluation.

Material and Methods

The non-probabilistic sample comprised 44 patients of both genders aged between 21 and 68 years, rehabilitated with 114 osseointegrated implants. Through a retrospective clinical study, the patients were divided according to the presence or absence of the interproximal papilla: Group 1 - Absence of Papilla, Group 2 - Partial Presence of Papilla and Group 3 - Total Presence of Papilla. The success of the implants, the periodontal biotype, and the vertical and horizontal distances of the interproximal regions included in the study were evaluated.

Results

Of the 114 implants, 46.5% were considered unsuccessful, and bleeding was present in 29.8%. The periodontal biotype presented as thin and scalloped was found in 85.1% of the regions. The evaluation of the groups according to the confirmation of the interproximal space showed a statistically significant difference (p = 0.007), with 61.9% of the wide and long interproximal spaces classified as Group 1, while 31% of the narrow and short interproximal spaces were classified as Group 3.

Conclusion

It was concluded that the morphology of the interproximal space was the factor that was most strongly associated with the presence or absence of the interproximal papilla.