The expanded mesh free gingival graft: A novel approach to increase the width of keratinized mucosa.

BACKGROUND: The importance of an adequate amount of peri-implant keratinized tissue and attached mucosa has recently been emphasized. This manuscript presents preliminary findings of a novel approach for increasing the width of keratinized mucosa (KM) around dental implants using a mesh free gingival graft (mesh-FGG). METHODS: Two healthy adults were treated as part of this study. After implant placement, a large edentulous alveolar ridge with shallow vestibule and minimal amount of KM was treated in both subjects (one in the posterior mandible and the other in the anterior mandible) with the combination of an apically positioned flap and a mesh-FGG. Clinical, esthetic and patient-reported outcomes were observed at approximately 4-month time points. RESULTS: All sites healed uneventfully after the treatments. In both cases, increased vestibule depth, soft-tissue thickness, and width of peri-implant KM were obtained. The patients did not report any accessory discomfort. Four months following the grafting procedure, good overall esthetic outcome was observed with minimal color disparity and graft demarcation. CONCLUSIONS: Width of KM around dental implants can be increased using a mesh-FGG. Randomized controlled clinical studies comparing mesh-FGG to conventional FGG and other commonly applied techniques are required to assess the long-term efficacy of this novel technique in terms of soft-tissue thickness, width of peri-implant KM, and patient-reported outcomes. KEY POINTS: Principal Findings: Meshed-FGG allowed an expansion of the length of the harvested graft. This results in coverage of large recipient sites, increase in height of KM and good aesthetic integration of the graft.

A 20-year split-mouth comparative study of two screw-shaped titanium implant systems.

PURPOSE: To prospectively assess marginal bone loss and implant survival with Astra Tech (Dentsply Sirona, Charlotte, NC, USA) (group A) and Brånemark (Nobel Biocare, Zurich, Switzerland) (group B) implants in a split-mouth study conducted over a 20-year follow-up period. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 95 implants (n = 50, group A and n = 45, group B) were randomly placed in the left or right side of the maxilla or mandible in 18 patients. Clinical and radiographic examinations were performed, and results were reported at 5, 10, 15 and 20 years after insertion of the prosthesis. RESULTS: Ten patients were followed up for 20 years (n = 26 implants, group A and n = 25 implants, group B). No implant loss or prosthetic failures were observed. After 20 years of follow-up, no significant differences in marginal bone loss were found between both implant groups (P = 0.25). The proportion of marginal bone loss ≥ 0.5 mm was not significantly different between implant types (P > 0.05), and no statistically significant relationships were found between marginal bone loss and time (P ≥ 0.05). More specifically, there was no significant difference in marginal bone level between year 20 and baseline in group A (P = 0.70), whereas a difference of 0.5 to 1.0 mm was found in group B (P = 0.15). CONCLUSIONS: After 20 years of follow-up, marginal bone loss around screw-shaped titanium implants was clinically insignificant. Furthermore, no significant differences in survival and marginal bone loss were found between group A and B implants over the follow-up period.

A split-mouth comparative study up to 16 years of two screw-shaped titanium implant systems.

INTRODUCTION: Many studies have dealt with the clinical outcome of oral implants, yet none applied a randomized split-mouth design for a long-term follow-up of similar implant systems. AIM: To evaluate two oral implant systems with different surface characteristics in a randomized split-mouth design and to radiologically analyse peri-implant bone level and density over an up to 16-year period. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study comprised clinical and radiographic records of 18 partially edentulous patients treated with both implant types randomly placed in either left or right jaw sides. Outcome was evaluated over time. RESULTS: Clinical and radiographic parameters showed no significant differences over time for both systems. Ten years after implant placement, a significantly increasing peri-implant bone density was noted, while Periotest values were found to be significantly decreasing. Fifteen years after implant loading, mean bone loss was 0.02 mm (range -1.15 to 1.51; SD 0.45) for Astra Tech® implants (n=24) and 0.31 mm (range -0.98 to 2.31; SD 0.69) for Brånemark® implants (n=23). CONCLUSIONS: The study failed to demonstrate significant differences in the outcome of the peri-implant bone for two implant systems with different surface characteristics. The marginal bone level around oral implants changed <0.5 mm after 15 years of loading.