ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the stability of periodontal tissues 3 (T3), 6 (T6), and 12 (T12) months after esthetic crown lengthening (ACL) and the possible correlations between changes in those structures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty individuals were evaluated through clinical assessment, photography, and tomography. Measurements included gingival margin (GM), clinical crown length (CCL), interdental papilla height (PH) and width (PW), gingival thickness (GT), bone thickness (BT), probing depth (PD), distance between alveolar crest and GM, distance between alveolar crest and cementoenamel junction. Nonparametric and correlation statistics were performed (p < 0.05). RESULTS: CCL at T0 was 7.42 ± 0.70 mm and increased to 9.48 ± 0.49 mm immediately after ACL, but it decreased to 8.93 ± 0.65 mm at T12. PD decreased 0.60 mm from T0 to T6, and it increased 0.39 mm from T6 to T12. BT decreased 0.20 mm, while GT increased 0.29 mm from T0 to T12. Both PW and PH showed enlargement in T12. A positive moderate correlation was found between CCL/T0 and CCL/T12, GT/T0 and AC-GM/T12, BT/T0 and GT/T12. A few negative moderate correlations were PD/T0 and CCL/T12, PD/T0 and PH/T0, PD/T0 and BT/T12. CONCLUSIONS: ACL procedure was effective. Although some rebound occurred, that was not clinically important. PD tended to reestablish its original length, partially due to a migration of GM during the healing period. Besides, a thickening of supracrestal soft tissues was observed. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The present study centers on the factors influencing the stability of periodontal tissues after esthetic crown lengthening, underscoring the procedure's influence on esthetics and biology and the need for careful treatment planning.
Subject(s)
Crown Lengthening , Esthetics, Dental , Humans , Gingiva , Periodontium , Alveolar ProcessABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the survival rate, success rate, and peri-implant biological changes of immediately loaded dental implants (ILs) placed in type 2 diabetic patients (DM2). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The present study was registered on PROSPERO and followed the PRISMA checklist. The search was performed by the first reviewer in January 2021. The electronic databases used were MEDLINE via PubMed, Cochrane, BVS, Web of Science, Scopus, LIVIVO, and gray literature. The risk of bias analysis was performed using an instrument from the Joanna Briggs Institute. RESULTS: A total of 3566 titles and abstracts were obtained. The qualitative synthesis included 7 studies, while the quantitative synthesis included 5 studies. The meta-analysis of IL in individuals with DM2 compared to nondiabetic individuals showed no significant difference among the groups regarding the survival rate of dental implants (RR = 1.00, 95% CI 0.96-1.04; p = 0.91; I2 = 0%), even if the patient had poor glycemic control (RR = 1.08, 95% CI 0.87-1.33; p = 0.48; I2 = 70%). Meta-analysis of marginal bone loss in IL compared to conventional loading in DM2 patients also showed no significant difference (mean difference = - 0.08, 95% CI - 0.25-0.08; p = 0.33; I2 = 83%). CONCLUSIONS: Type 2 diabetes mellitus does not seem to be a risk factor for immediately loaded implants if the glycemic level is controlled, the oral hygiene is satisfactory, and the technical steps are strictly followed. Clinical relevance Rehabilitation in diabetic individuals is more common due to the highest prevalence of edentulism in this population. It is essential to establish appropriate protocols for loading dental implants.