RESUMEN
Purpose@#Marginal bone loss (MBL) is an important clinical issue in implant therapy. One feature that has been cited as a contributing factor to this bone loss is peri-implant mucosal thickness. Therefore, in this report, we conducted a systematic review of the literature comparing bone remodeling around implants placed in areas with thick (≥2-mm) vs. thin (<2-mm) mucosa. @*Methods@#A PICO question was defined. Manual and electronic searches were performed of the MEDLINE/PubMed and Cochrane Oral Health Group databases. The inclusion criteria were prospective studies that documented soft tissue thickness with direct intraoperative measurements and that included at least 1 year of follow-up. When possible, a meta-analysis was performed for both the overall and subgroup analyses. @*Results@#Thirteen papers fulfilled the inclusion criteria. A meta-analysis of 7 randomized clinical trials was conducted. Significantly less bone loss was found around implants with thick mucosa than around those with thin mucosa (difference, −0.53 mm; P<0.0001).Subgroups were analyzed regarding the apico-coronal positioning, the use of platformmatched vs. platform-switched (PS) connections, and the use of cement-retained vs.screw-retained prostheses. In these analyses, thick mucosa was found to be associated with significantly less MBL than thin mucosa (P<0.0001). Among non-matching (PS) connections and screw-retained prostheses, bone levels were not affected by mucosal thickness. @*Conclusions@#Soft tissue thickness was found to be correlated with MBL except in cases of PS connections used on implants with thin tissues and screw-retained prostheses.Mucosal thickness did not affect implant survival or the occurrence of biological or aesthetic complications.Trial Registration: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO):CRD42018084598
RESUMEN
Purpose@#Marginal bone loss (MBL) is an important clinical issue in implant therapy. One feature that has been cited as a contributing factor to this bone loss is peri-implant mucosal thickness. Therefore, in this report, we conducted a systematic review of the literature comparing bone remodeling around implants placed in areas with thick (≥2-mm) vs. thin (<2-mm) mucosa. @*Methods@#A PICO question was defined. Manual and electronic searches were performed of the MEDLINE/PubMed and Cochrane Oral Health Group databases. The inclusion criteria were prospective studies that documented soft tissue thickness with direct intraoperative measurements and that included at least 1 year of follow-up. When possible, a meta-analysis was performed for both the overall and subgroup analyses. @*Results@#Thirteen papers fulfilled the inclusion criteria. A meta-analysis of 7 randomized clinical trials was conducted. Significantly less bone loss was found around implants with thick mucosa than around those with thin mucosa (difference, −0.53 mm; P<0.0001).Subgroups were analyzed regarding the apico-coronal positioning, the use of platformmatched vs. platform-switched (PS) connections, and the use of cement-retained vs.screw-retained prostheses. In these analyses, thick mucosa was found to be associated with significantly less MBL than thin mucosa (P<0.0001). Among non-matching (PS) connections and screw-retained prostheses, bone levels were not affected by mucosal thickness. @*Conclusions@#Soft tissue thickness was found to be correlated with MBL except in cases of PS connections used on implants with thin tissues and screw-retained prostheses.Mucosal thickness did not affect implant survival or the occurrence of biological or aesthetic complications.Trial Registration: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO):CRD42018084598
RESUMEN
Peri-implant disease is a serious problem that plagues today's dentistry, both in terms of therapy and epidemiology. With the expansion of the practice of implantology and an increasing number of implants placed annually, the frequency of peri-implant disease has greatly expanded. Its clinical manifestations, in the absence of a globally established classification, are peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis, the counterparts of gingivitis and periodontitis, respectively. However, many doubts remain about its features. Official diagnostic criteria, globally recognized by the dental community, have not yet been introduced. The latest studies using metagenomic methods are casting doubt on the assumption of microbial equivalence between periodontal and peri-implant crevices. Research on most of the features of peri-implant disease remains at an early stage; moreover, there is not a commonly accepted treatment for it. In any case, although the evidence so far collected is limited, we need to be aware of the current state of the science regarding this topic to better understand and ultimately prevent this disease.