Outcome measures and methods of assessment of soft tissue augmentation interventions in the context of dental implant therapy: A systematic review of clinical studies published in the last 10 years.

AIM: To identify and report outcome measures and methods of assessment on soft tissue augmentation interventions in the context of dental implant therapy reported in clinical studies published in the last 10 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The protocol of this Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020-compliant systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021252214). A literature search was conducted to identify articles that met the pre-established eligibility criteria. Data of interest, with an emphasis on outcome measures, were extracted. For each outcome, specific methods and timing of assessment were described in detail. Following a critical qualitative analysis of the data, outcome measures were categorized. Primary outcomes were identified, and the frequency of reporting in the selected articles was calculated. Additionally, risk-of-bias assessments were performed for individual articles and primary outcomes. RESULTS: Ninety-two articles, of which 39 reported randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 20 non-RCTs, and 33 case series studies, were selected. Outcome measures were categorized into either investigator-evaluated outcome measures (i.e., clinical, digital imaging, aesthetic, histological, biomarker, and safety) or patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Clinical outcomes were the most frequently reported type of outcome. Considering all categories, the most frequently reported primary outcomes were facial mucosa thickness assessed with clinical methods (22.83%), facial keratinized mucosa width assessed with clinical methods (19.57%), facial mucosal margin position/recession assessed with clinical methods (18.48%), facial mucosa thickness assessed with digital imaging methods (11.96%), facial soft tissue volume assessed with digital imaging methods (9.78%), and supracrestal tissue height assessed with clinical methods (9.78%). No distinguishable patterns of association between specific types or quality (level of bias) of clinical studies and the choice of primary outcomes were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical research on peri-implant soft tissue augmentation has progressively increased in the last 10 years. Although clinical outcome measures were the most frequently reported outcomes in the selected literature, trends in the field are indicative of a shift from traditional clinical assessment methods to the use of digital technologies. PROMs were generally under-reported but should be considered an integral methodological component in future clinical studies.

Outcome measures and methods of assessment of soft-tissue augmentation interventions in the context of dental implant therapy: A systematic review of clinical studies published in the last 10 years.

AIM: The aim of the study was to identify and report outcome measures and methods of assessment on soft-tissue augmentation interventions in the context of dental implant therapy reported in clinical studies published in the last 10 years. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The protocol of this PRISMA 2020-compliant systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021252214). A literature search was conducted to identify articles that met the pre-established eligibility criteria. Data of interest, with an emphasis on outcome measures, were extracted. For each outcome, specific methods and timing of assessment were described in detail. Following a critical qualitative analysis of the data, outcome measures were categorized. Primary outcomes were identified and the frequency of reporting in the selected articles was calculated. Additionally, risk of bias assessments were performed for individual articles and primary outcomes. RESULTS: Ninety-two articles, of which 39 reported randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 20 reported non-RCTs, and 33 reported case series studies, were selected. Outcome measures were categorized into either investigator-evaluated outcome measures (i.e., clinical, digital imaging, esthetic, histologic, biomarker, and safety) or patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Clinical outcomes were the most frequently reported type of outcome. Considering all categories, the most frequently reported primary outcomes were facial mucosa thickness assessed with clinical methods (22.83%), facial keratinized mucosa width assessed with clinical methods (19.57%), facial mucosal margin position/recession assessed with clinical methods (18.48%), facial mucosa thickness assessed with digital imaging methods (11.96%), facial soft-tissue volume assessed with digital imaging methods (9.78%), and supracrestal tissue height assessed with clinical methods (9.78%). No distinguishable patterns of association between specific types or quality (level of bias) of clinical studies and the choice of primary outcomes were observed. CONCLUSION: Clinical research on peri-implant soft-tissue augmentation has progressively increased in the last 10 years. Although clinical outcome measures were the most frequently reported outcomes in the selected literature, trends in the field are indicative of a shift from traditional clinical assessment methods to the use of digital technologies. PROMs were generally underreported but should be considered an integral methodological component in future clinical studies.

Results at the 1-Year Follow-Up of a Prospective Cohort Study with Short, Zirconia Implants.

The objective of this study was to clinically and radiologically evaluate the performance of a short (8 mm), 1-piece, zirconia implant after an observation period of 1 year in function. A total of 47 patients with 1 missing tooth in the position of a premolar or molar were recruited. Short (8 mm), 1-piece, zirconia implants were placed and loaded after a healing period of 2 to 4 months with monolithic crowns made of 3 different materials. Implants were followed up for one year and clinically and radiologically assessed. A total of 46 implants were placed. One was excluded since no primary stability was achieved at implant placement. At the 1-year follow-up, mean marginal bone loss 1 year after loading was 0.05 ± 0.47 mm. None of the implants showed marginal bone loss greater than 1 mm or clinical signs of peri-implantitis. A total of 2 implants were lost during the healing phase and another after loading, resulting in a survival rate of 93% after 1 year. All lost implants showed a sudden increased mobility with no previous signs of marginal bone loss or peri-implant infection. The short, 8 mm, zirconia implants showed stable marginal bone levels over the short observation period of 1 year. Although they revealed slightly lower survival rates, they can be suggested for the use in sites with reduced vertical bone. Scientific data are very limited, and long-term data are not yet available, and therefore, they are needed.

Contour Changes Following Implant Placement and Concomitant Soft Tissue Augmentation Applying a Volume-Stable Collagen Matrix.

The objective of this study was to assess volumetric and linear changes of buccal mucosal thickness at implant sites following soft tissue augmentation with a volume-stable collagen matrix (VCMX). Soft tissue augmentation using a VCMX was performed in 12 patients at the time of implant placement. Hydrocolloid impressions were taken prior to surgery and at 1 and 6 months postsurgery. Stone cast models were scanned, and stereolithography (STL) files from the three time points were uploaded to an image-analysis software. At all time points, linear and volumetric measurements of the contour changes up to 3 mm apical to the mucosal margin were performed and were analyzed statistically. At 1 mm apical to the mucosal margin, the change in soft tissue thickness between presurgery (T1) and 1 month (T2) amounted to 0.21 ± 1.22 mm, and the change between T1 and 6 months (T3) was 0.08 ± 1.47 mm. At 3 mm apical to the mucosal margin, the change in soft tissue thickness was 1.92 ± 1.70 mm between T1 and T2 and 0.31 ± 1.26 mm between T1 and T3. Contour (volumetric) changes revealed an increase of 0.58 ± 0.73 mm between T1 and T2 and an overall gain of 0.55 ± 0.73 mm between T1 and T3. Soft tissue augmentation with VCMX increased the ridge profile. The increase in ridge width was greater at 3 mm below the ridge crest than at 1 mm below the ridge crest. Remodeling processes during healing showed a decrease in the ridge contour between 1 and 6 months.

The influence of thin as compared to thick peri-implant soft tissues on aesthetic outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: In systematically healthy patients with an implant-supported fixed restoration (P), what is the influence of thin (E) as compared to thick (C) peri-implant soft tissues on aesthetic outcomes (O)? METHODS: Following an a priori protocol, a literature search of six databases was conducted up to August 2020 to identify prospective/retrospective clinical studies on healthy patients with an implant-supported fixed reconstruction. Measurement of the buccal soft tissue thickness and an aesthetic outcome was a prerequisite, and sites presenting with a buccal soft tissue thickness of <2 mm or shimmering of a periodontal probe were categorized as a thin phenotype. After study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment, random-effects meta-analysis of Mean Differences (MD) or Odds Ratios (OR) with their corresponding 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were conducted, followed by sensitivity analyses and assessment of the quality of evidence. RESULTS: Thirty-four unique studies reporting on 1508 patients with 1606 sites were included (9 randomized controlled trials, one controlled trial, 10 prospective cohort studies, 8 cross-sectional studies, and 6 retrospective cohort studies). The mean difference of the pink aesthetic score (PES) after the follow-up was not significantly different between thin (<2.0 mm) or thick soft tissues (≥2.0 mm) or phenotypes (12 studies; MD = 0.15; [95% CI = -0.24, 0.53]; p = .46). PES changes during the follow-up, however, were significantly in favour of thick soft tissues (≥2.0 mm) or phenotypes (p = .05). An increased mean mucosal thickness was associated with an increased papilla index (5 studies; MD = 0.5; [95% CI = 0.1, 0.3]; p = .002) and an increase in papilla presence (5 studies; OR = 1.6; [95% CI = 1.0, 2.3]; p = .03). Thin soft tissues were associated with more recession, -0.62 mm (4 studies; [95% CI = -1.06, -0.18]; p = .006). Patient-reported outcome measures (patient satisfaction) were in favour of thick soft tissues -2.33 (6 studies; [95% CI = -4.70, 0.04]; p = .05). However, the quality of evidence was very low in all instances due to the inclusion of non-randomized studies, high risk of bias and residual confounding. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of the present study (weak study designs and various soft tissue measurements or time-points), it can be concluded that increased soft tissue thickness at implant sites was associated with more favourable aesthetic outcomes.

Randomized controlled clinical study comparing two types of two-piece dental implants supporting fixed restorations-Results at 8 years of loading.

OBJECTIVES: To assess clinical, technical, biological, and radiographic outcomes of implants supporting fixed restorations using two types of dental implants with non-matching implant-abutment junctions at 8 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-four patients were randomly assigned to receive one of two implant systems (S1 or S2) and eventually fixed restorations. Patients were examined at loading (TL ), one (T1 ), three (T3 ), five (T5 ), and eight years (T8 ). Outcome measures included implant and restoration survival, technical and biological complications, and radiographic bone levels. All data were analyzed on the implant and patient level. RESULTS: Ninety-eight implants were inserted in 64 patients and loaded with fixed restorations. At 8 years, 49 patients with 42 (S1) and 36 (S2) implants (25 in group S1 and 24 in group S2 on the patient level) were re-examined. The survival rates on the patient level were 97.6% (S1) and 97.2% (S2). The marginal bone levels (the primary endpoint) amounted to a gain of 0.21 mm (Q1: -0.11 mm; Q3: 0.5 mm) (S1) (p = .007) and to a loss of 0.24 mm (Q1: -0.79 mm; Q3: 0.05 mm) (S2) (p = .001) between baseline (TL ) and T8 (intergroup p < .001). The technical complication rates were 28% (S1) and 12.5% (S2) (intergroup p = .289). Peri-implant mucositis was observed in 24% (S1) and 50% (S2) of the implants on the patient level (intergroup p = .792). The respective figures for peri-implantitis were 0% (S1) and 12.5% (S2) (intergroup p = .11). CONCLUSIONS: Dental implants with non-matching implant-abutment junctions supporting fixed restorations resulted in high survival rates independent of the system used. Differences, mainly observed in terms of technical complications (in favor of S2), biological complications (in favor of S1), and marginal bone-level changes (in favor of group S1), appear to be clinically negligible.

Contour changes of peri-implant tissues are minimal and similar for a one- and a two-piece implant system over 12 years.

OBJECTIVES: To assess contour changes of peri-implant tissues comparing a one- and a two-piece dental implant system over 12 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients seeking implant therapy were enrolled and randomly allocated to receive implants (a one-piece (STM) or a two-piece (BRA) system). Impressions were taken at the time of insertion of the final reconstruction (BL), after 1 year (FU-1), 5 years (FU-5), and at 12 years (FU-12). Thirty patients were included in the analysis (STM, 16; BRA, 14). Digital scans of casts were superimposed and analyzed in an image analysis program. Measurements included changes of the crown height, contour changes on the buccal side of the implants and the contralateral teeth (control). RESULTS: Contour changes at implant sites revealed a loss of - 0.29 mm (STM) and - 0.46 mm (BRA) during an observation period of 12 years. Contour changes at the corresponding tooth sites amounted to - 0.06 mm (STM) and - 0.12 mm (BRA) during the same time period. The implant crown gained 0.25 mm (STM) and 0.08 mm (BRA) in height due to recession of the marginal mucosa. The corresponding gain in crown height at the contralateral tooth sites amounted to 0.36 mm (STM) and 0.10 mm (BRA). Interproximal marginal bone level changes measured - 0.28 mm (STM) and - 1.11 mm (BRA). The mean BOP amounted to 38.8% (STM) and 48.7% (BRA) at the 12-year follow-up (FU-12). CONCLUSION: Minimal changes of the peri-implant soft tissue contour were observed at implant sites over the period of 12 years irrespective of the use of a one- or a two-piece implant system. The differences between the implant sites and corresponding teeth were clinically negligible. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Peri-implant soft tissue stability is of high clinical relevance when monitoring dental implant sites on the long run. Clinical data on the extent of soft tissue changes around different implant systems are scarce. The present RCTs demonstrate minimal changes of the peri-implant soft tissue contour 12 years after implant insertion independent of the use of a one- or a two-piece implant system.

A global perspective on implant education: Cluster analysis of the "first dental implant experience" of dentists from 84 nationalities.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this cross-sectional study was to explore the demographic and educational patterns related to the dentists' first implant dental experience. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Participants of a Massive Open Online Course in implant dentistry who have placed and restored implants completed a 25-item online questionnaire investigating their pathway of education and assessing their experience with the "first implant placement." Exploratory analysis included hierarchical clustering using 9 demographic categorical factors. RESULTS: A total of 1015 respondents from 84 countries formed 5 distinct clusters. Age and work experience were dominant clustering traits, decreasing from Cluster 1 to Cluster 5. Clusters 1 and 3 represented "senior" and "younger" general dental practitioners, respectively, whilst Clusters 2 and 4 represented post-graduate educated clinicians. Cluster 5 represented recent graduates. Asia, South America and Africa were over-represented in "younger" clusters. Time in practice was a significant determinant of attitudes, followed by completion of post-graduate education. There were significant differences in reported patterns of challenges and complications depending on dentists' time in practice, age and post-graduate education. Challenge in implant positioning was more frequently identified by "young post-graduate" educated dentists. Recent graduates reported having the fewest complications of all clusters. Obtaining implant education in University settings was most frequently recommended by clusters of dentists with post-graduate education. CONCLUSIONS: Time in practice is a parameter to be considered when designing implant education. The absence of structured education and mentorship might lead to inability to properly assess treatment outcomes and identify complications. Quality-assured and practice-directed education is needed at a global level, to support in particular, recent graduates who now seem to engage with implant dentistry early in their career.

The Key Points of Maintenance Therapy for Dental Implants: A Literature Review.

Dental implants require lifelong maintenance and care. Success is defined by biologic factors (presence of inflamed soft tissues surrounding dental implants and radiographic changes in the crestal bone levels) and mechanical factors (stability of the implant fixture and implant supported restoration, etc). Most implant failures are initiated by incipient stages of inflammatory processes, which lead to peri-mucositis and peri-implantitis. The evidence regarding the value of maintenance protocol regarding implants is sparse compared with the one for teeth. This article addresses the existing literature on processes for oral hygiene for implant care.