Association of Peri-Implant Mucosa Dimensions With Emergence Profile Angles of the Implant Prosthesis.

OBJECTIVES: The primary aim of this cross-sectional study was to investigate the association between prosthesis design and peri-implant mucosa dimensions and morphology. The secondary aim was to investigate associations between mucosal dimensions and the presence of mucositis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-seven patients with 103 posterior bone level implants underwent clinical and radiographic examination, including cone beam computer tomography and intraoral optical scanning. Three-dimensional models for each implant and peri-implant mucosa were constructed. Vertical mucosa height (TH), horizontal mucosa width at implant platform (TW), and 1.5 mm coronal of the platform (TW1.5), as well as mucosal emergence angle (MEA), deep angle (DA), and total contour angle (TA) were measured at six sites for each implant. RESULTS: There was a consistent correlation between peri-implant mucosa width and height (ß = 0.217, p < 0.001), with the width consistently surpassing height by a factor of 1.4-2.1. All three angles (MEA, DA, TA) were negatively associated with mucosa height (p < 0.001), while DA was negatively associated with mucosa width (TW1.5) (p < 0.001, ß = -0.02, 95% CI: -0.03, -0.01). There was a significant negative association between bleeding on probing (BoP) and mucosa width at platform (OR 0.903, 95% CI: 0.818-0.997, p = 0.043) and 1.5 coronal (OR 0.877, 95% CI: 0.778-0.989, p = 0.033). Implants with less than half sites positive for BoP (0-2/6) had significantly higher mucosa height (OR 3.51, 95% CI: 1.72-7.14, p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Prosthesis design can influence the dimensions of the peri-implant mucosa, with wider emergence profile angles associated with reduced peri-implant mucosa height. In particular, a wider deep angle is associated with reduced mucosa width in posterior sites. Reduced peri-implant mucosa height and width are associated with more signs of inflammation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered in Thai Clinical Trials Registry: http://www.thaiclinicaltrials.org/show/TCTR20220204002.

Association of prosthetic angles of the Implant Supracrestal Complex with peri-implant tissue mucositis.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate the association of the Mucosal Emergence Angle (MEA) with peri-implant tissue mucositis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Forty-seven patients with 103 posterior bone level implants underwent clinical and radiographic examination. Three-dimensional data from Cone Bean Computer Tomography and Optica Scan were transposed. Three angles were defined: MEA, Deep Angle (DA) and Total Angle (TA) and measured at six sites for each implant. RESULTS: There was a significant correlation between MEA and Bleeding on Probing for all sites with an overall odds ratio of odd ratio 1.07 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-1.09, p < 0.001). Sites with MEA ≥ 30°, 40°, 50°, 60°, and 70° had a higher risk for bleeding with an odds ratio of 3.1, 5, 7.5, 11.4 and 33.55, respectively. When all 6 sites of an implant prostheses had MEA ≥ 40°, the risk of having bleeding at all 6 sites was 9.5 times higher (95% CI 1.70-52.97, p = 0.010). CONCLUSIONS: Maintaining MEA no wider than 30°-40° is advisable, while the aim should be to keep this angle as narrow as clinically feasible. Registered in Thai Clinical Trials Registry: http://www.thaiclinicaltrials.org/show/TCTR20220204002.

Effect of mixed chlorhexidine and hydrogen peroxide mouthrinses on developing plaque and stain in gingivitis patients: a randomized clinical trial.

AIMS: To evaluate the effects of mixed chlorhexidine (CHX)/hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) mouthrinses compared with CHX mouthrinse alone on plaque, tooth stain, and gingivitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was a double-blind, randomized two group parallel experiment, using a 14-day non-brushing half-mouth model. The test group was randomly assigned to the mixed 0.12% CHX and 1.5% H2O2 mouthrinse, whereas the control group used 0.12% CHX. Sixty healthy volunteers were enrolled in the study and received scaling and polishing 2 weeks prior to the experiment and then rinsed with the allocated mouthrinses twice daily for 2 weeks. The plaque, stain, and gingivitis scores were evaluated and recorded by a calibrated investigator. RESULTS: Fifty-two subjects completed the study (CHX + H2O2n = 25/CHX n = 27). There were significant differences between the control and test groups for plaque index (CHX 0.64 ± 0.41 vs. CHX + H2O2 0.46 ± 0.36, p = 0.035) and stain intensity at proximal areas (CHX 0.26 ± 0.36 vs. CHX + H2O2 0.09 ± 0.14, p = 0.019) at the end of the experimental non-brushing side. However, the gingival indices did not differ significantly (CHX 0.61 ± 0.34 vs. CHX + H2O2 0.62 ± 0.31, p = 0.938) between groups. CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of oral hygiene practice, the mixed CHX + H2O2 mouthrinse was slightly superior in reducing plaque scores and stain compared with CHX alone. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The clinical effectiveness of CHX + H2O2 is comparable with CHX mouthwash alone. Therefore, the use of the mixed mouthrinse is beneficial compared with CHX for minimizing biofilm and tooth staining.