RESUMEN
The basis for dental implant success comes not only with the titanium implant osseointegration but also depends on other factors such as the development of a soft tissue barrier, which protects the peri-implant bone from the oral environment. The characteristics of surfaces in contact with peri-implant soft tissues may affect the capacity of peri-implant mucosal cells to create a tight seal around the implant, thus influencing long-term implant success. Many histological studies on animals have been conducted on different materials to better understand their influence on peri-implant soft tissues, with the limitation that results from animal studies cannot be fully translated in humans. The aim of this review paper was to analyze the literature focusing on histological clinical studies in humans which have examined different materials or different surface treatments and their effects on peri-implant soft tissues. The research was conducted according to the following PICO question: "Do different implant/abutment materials affect peri-implant soft tissues adhesion and health?". Nine articles were analyzed in this review. The results of this review show the influence of different abutment materials on the peri-implant soft tissues, and the need of further research regarding the effect that abutment materials, surface treatments, and surface properties have on soft tissues.
RESUMEN
A 69-year-old woman consulted the Oral surgery and implantology unit of the Geneva University Hospitals with the chief complaint of chewing difficulties, aesthetic discomfort and dry mouth. The wish of the patient was to receive a reliable fixed solution in the long term. The patient had chronic nonspecific sialadenitis accompanied by xerostomia. She wore a total prosthesis stabilized on two inter-foraminal implants and had multiple cavities of the remaining maxillary teeth. The goals of treatment were to improve masticatory function with fixed prosthetic rehabilitation on upper and lower implants. With a post-extraction alveolar ridge preservation technique, the placement of Straumann® maxillary implants could be performed with a basic sequence without bone augmentation which reduced morbidity, treatment time and costs compared to reconstruction of the edentulous and atrophied mandible. The patient was very satisfied at the follow-up at 3 and 6 months as well as at 1 and 2 years, and the restorations were stable. In summary, the post-extraction preservation of the alveolar ridges is a predictable therapeutic option that can be considered in a context of multiple extraction in order to limit the complexity of the implant treatment.
