Marginal soft tissue recession after lateral guided bone regeneration at implant site: A long-term study with at least 5 years of loading.

BACKGROUND/AIM: This study evaluated marginal soft tissue recession at implants with simultaneous lateral guided bone regeneration (GBR), at least five years after prosthetic loading. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients treated with GBR at the time of implant placement and adherent to supportive periodontal therapy (SPT) program with at least 5 years of follow-up were re-examined in 5 clinical centers. At the last follow-up, clinical and radiographic data on peri-implant hard and soft tissue were collected. Multilevel analysis considering center, patient, and implant (brand, length, diameter, position) was performed. RESULTS: A total of 96 patients and 195 augmented implants were included. The mean duration of SPT was 8.3 ± 3.1 years, while mean recall frequency was 4.5 ± 1.3 months. Sixty-five (33%) implants received soft tissue graft before prosthetic delivery. Twenty-one (11%) implants developed biological complications during the follow-up. No implant failure was reported. Mean difference in bone levels (ΔBL) was -0.7 ± 0.9 mm, while mean difference in keratinized tissue (ΔKT) was -0.4 ± 0.9 mm. Eighty-five (44%) implants showed recession (REC) of soft tissue margin (mean 0.6 ± 0.8 mm). The presence of REC was associated with use of non-resorbable membrane (p < .0001) and wider implant diameter (p = .0305), while use of soft tissue graft significantly predicted higher stability of peri-implant mucosal margin (p = .0003). CONCLUSION: Peri-implant mucosal recession is a common feature 5 years after lateral GBR. The risk of recession may be reduced using GBR with resorbable membranes, small diameter implants, and soft tissue grafting before prosthetic treatment.

Oral Care and Quality Evaluation: A Multicentric Study on Periodontal Treatment.

PURPOSE: No information is available on the perception of the quality of care in patients treated for periodontitis. The purpose of this article was to assess how periodontitis-affected patients perceive the quality of periodontal treatment (PT) and to measure the factors which may influence it. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 306 subjects who completed PT were invited to participate. Questionnaires and visual analogic scales (VAS) evaluating perception of quality of care, symptoms, and oral health related quality of life (OHRQoL) were handed out. Oral and periodontal indicators were collected before and after treatment. The impact of different factors on perception of quality was assessed with a regression model. RESULTS: Quality evaluation was high yet unrelated for both patients and clinicians (p = 0.983). Quality was negatively influenced by the number of residual oral infections (p < 0.001), patient's age (p = 0.07) and presence of residual pain at completion of PT (p = 0.02). Professionalism, kindness of the staff and communication skills were the characteristics mostly appreciated. The OHRQoL was influenced by the number of residual teeth (p < 0.001), increasing age of patients (p = 0.08), number of residual infections (p < 0.01) and pain (p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Patients' quality perception appeared to be influenced by clinical and emotional aspects. Oral care providers should be aware of the impact of non-clinical factors in patients' appreciation of quality of treatment.