Behavior of Soft Tissue around Platform-Switched Implants and Non-Platform-Switched Implants: A Comparative Three-Year Clinical Study.

To verify the influence of platform-switching (PS) on soft tissue behavior by comparing the soft tissue stability around implants with and without PS, during three years of follow-up. The study included patients treated with fixed dentures supported by implants with an internal connection. The radiographic distance between the first bone-to-implant contact (FBIC) and the implant shoulder was assessed. Additionally, the presence of keratinized facial mucosa and the prosthetic crown height (TH) were monitored for three years from the delivery of the definitive crown. These parameters were measured for two different groups: platform-switched implants in the PS group and non-platform-switched (NPS) implants in the NPS group. Seventy-seven implants were considered in the statistical analysis. After three years, the overall FBIC mean value was 0.31 ± 1.00 mm. However, the mean FBIC was 0.66 ± 0.97 mm for the NPS group and -0.05 ± 0.91 mm for the PS group. Moreover, a mean recession of 0.54 ± 1.39 mm was measured for the NPS group, whereas a mean coronal migration of 0.17 ± 0.95 mm was measured for the PS group. A significant correlation was also found between the presence of PS and ΔTH (p ≤ 0.01) over the three years of follow-up. The absence or presence of platform-switching would appear to affect the tendency of the gingival buccal margin towards recession or creeping. Additionally, implant-abutment platform-switching seems to help prevent peri-implant soft tissue recession over time when compared to implants without PS.

Can transfer type and implant angulation affect impression accuracy? A 3D in vitro evaluation.

Impression accuracy is fundamental to achieve a passive fit between implants and the superstructure. Three transfer types were tested to evaluate the differences in impression accuracy and their efficiency in case of different implant angles. A master model with four implant analogues placed at 0°, 15° and 35° was used. 27 impressions were taken with three different types of impression coping: closed tray technique coping (CT), open tray technique coping (COT) and telescopic open tray coping (TOT). The impressions were poured. Analogues were matched with scan bodies to be scanned and exported in STL. An implant bar was designed from each STL and another one from the master model. A comparison between these bars was obtained. Linear and angular measurements for every type of coping were calculated for different angulations. The collected data were analyzed with ANOVA test (95% of confidence). Student's t test showed a significative discrepancy (p ≤ 0.001) on linear and angular measurements on Δx, Δy, Δz with different transfer types as well as diverse implant positioning angles (p ≤ 0.001). Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that the coping type and the implants divergence may be significant parameters influencing the impression accuracy.

Influence of the implant-abutment connection on the ratio between height and thickness of tissues at the buccal zenith: a randomized controlled trial on 188 implants placed in 104 patients.

BACKGROUND: To compare tissue response to two implant systems, featuring internal hexed connections with different designs. METHODS: Patients enrolled in this randomized controlled trial were assigned to two groups. In Group 1, patients were treated with implants with a 5° conical internal hexed connection (Anyridge®, MegaGen, South Korea). In Group 2, patients were treated with implants with an internal hexed connection (Core®, Kristal, Italy). After implant placement and a provisionalisation period of 12 months, impressions were taken, stone casts were poured and digitised with a desktop scanner (D700®, 3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark). In a digital environment, for each fixture, two values were collected at the buccal zenith: the height of the peri-implant mucosa (mucosal height; MH), calculated from the vestibular shoulder of the implant analogue to the upper gingival margin of the supra-implant tissue; and the width of the peri-implant mucosa (mucosal thickness; MT), calculated from the vestibular shoulder of the analogue to the external mucosa point perpendicular to the implant major axis. The mean and standard deviation for MH and MT, as well as their ratios, were calculated for each group; the sectors in which the implants were placed were also considered. Finally, correlation between MH, MT, connection type and sector was assessed by Pearson's correlation coefficient, with significance level set at 0.05, and a confidence interval (CI) set at 95%. RESULTS: Data deriving from 188 implants placed in 104 patients were evaluated. The mean MH values were 3.32 (± 0.12) and 2.70 (± 0.16) mm for Groups 1 and 2, respectively. The mean MT values were 4.37 (± 0.16) and 3.93 (± 0.18) mm for Groups 1 and 2, respectively. Group 1 showed higher MH and MT values and a better ratio (1.50 ± 0.88) than Group 2 (1.81 ± 1.20). The MH, MT and MH/MT ratio were significantly influenced both by sector (p = 0.015) and group (p = 0.047). CONCLUSIONS: Within the limits of this study, the 5° connection implants supported a more extended tissue height and thickness at the buccal zenith, and a better ratio between them. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was retrospectively registered in Clinicaltrials.gov, with number NCT04160689, dated 13/11/2019.

Correlation between Buccal Bone Thickness at Implant Placement in Healed Sites and Buccal Soft Tissue Maturation Pattern: A Prospective Three-Year Study.

BACKGROUND: Optimal aesthetic implant restoration is a combination of a visually pleasing prosthesis and adequate surrounding peri-implant soft tissue architecture. This study describes the influence of the residual buccal bone thickness (BBT), measured at the time of implant placement, on the soft tissue maturation during three years of follow-up. METHODS: Seventy-eight implants were enrolled in the present study. The BBT was assessed at the surgical stage and each case assigned to Group 1 (BBT values ≤0.5 mm), Group 2 (BBT values >0.5 and <1.5 mm), or Group 3 (BBT values ≥1.5 mm). Only native bone and healed sites were included. The tooth height (TH), based on the distance between the buccal free gingival margin at the zenith level and the crown incisal edge, according to the main axis of the tooth, was monitored at one, two, and three years from the final prosthodontic rehabilitation to determine any occurrence of recession or coronal repositioning of the gums over time. A Pearson Two-Tailed test was applied and the significance level set at p ≤ 0.05. RESULTS: For BBT values ≤0.5 mm, the buccal gum at three years showed an average recession of 1.22 ± 0.41 mm. For BBT values >0.5 and <1.5 mm, the buccal gum also showed recession of 0.64 ± 0.29 mm. In contrast, for BBT values ≥1.5 mm, the buccal gum showed coronal growth of 0.77 ± 0.22 mm. The differences between the groups were significant (p ≤ 0.01) at all times. CONCLUSION: The BBT at the time of implant placement was found to affect the buccal gingival margin stability over three years of observation.