Bucco-palatal implant position and its impact on soft tissue level in the maxillary esthetic zone.

AIM: The term "buccal implant position" is commonly used but lacks a precise definition and missing a reference point. Considering its major impact on peri-implantitis and esthetic failures the purpose of this study was to find a correlation between bucco-palatal implant positioning and the midfacial soft tissue level of implant crowns using newly defined Emergence-points. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with unilateral single-tooth implant crowns in the region of the central or lateral maxillary incisor were included in this study. Digital intraoral scans were superimposed over a scan of the master cast or the original digital data set and analyzed in a computer planning program. In relation to the corresponding natural tooth, an ideal Emergence-point (EIDEAL -point) was defined from a frontal view. The distance to the real Emergence-point (EREAL -point) of the implant crown was correlated to apical displacement (AD) of peri-implant soft tissue. The distance of the implant shoulder (I-point) to the real Emergence-point (EREAL -point) of the implant crown was also correlated to the AD of peri-implant soft tissue. In cross sections, the horizontal distance between EREAL - and I-point represents the sagittal implant position (SIP), and the vertical distance represents the vertical implant position (VIP). RESULTS: Seventy-three patients met the inclusion criteria. AD ranged from 0 to 3.5 mm (AD = 0.87 ± 1.01), SIP from 0.2 to 5.1 mm (AD = 2.66 ± 1.64). Statistical analysis showed a significant inverse correlation between AD and SIP (ρ = -.55, p < .001). VIP, the implant inclination, time span since implant insertion, and phenotype revealed no significant correlation to AD. CONCLUSION: The more palatal the implant was positioned, the less AD was observed. The position of the implant shoulder should preferably be planned more than 2 mm behind the ideal E-point. This E-point can be used for implant planning as it defines the ideal crown length for prospective planning.

Gingival recession behavior with immediate implant placement in the anterior maxilla with buccal dehiscence without additional augmentation-a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Immediate implant placement in the presence of intact extraction alveoli has frequently been reported, while hardly any reports on immediate implant placement in missing buccal bone can be found in literature. OBJECTIVES: This pilot study evaluates esthetic outcome and soft and hard tissue level changes of immediate implant placement with immediate provisionalization in patients with partially/completely missing buccal bone without any further augmentation procedure in the maxillary anterior zone. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twelve patients (TG) with partially to completely missing buccal bone designated for extraction and flapless immediate implant insertion in the anterior zone of the maxilla were included. Patients randomly selected out of a larger group of patients with immediate implants with intact alveoli served as controls (CG). Immediate provisionalization was done without any further augmentation of the alveolar ridge. Marginal hard and soft tissue levels, PES, and implant success were evaluated during a 1-year observation period. RESULTS: The defect of the buccal alveolar bone was 4.96 mm (min., 2.26 mm; max., 9.68 mm) and the mean mesio-distal extension 4.25 mm (min., 3.2 mm; max., 5.91 mm). Preoperative PES differed significantly between TG (9.68) and CG (12.25) and improved in TG postoperatively with no significant difference to CG after 1 year (TG, 10.91; CG, 11.3). The buccal soft tissue level remained almost unchanged over the observation period (TG preop, 0.86 mm ± 0.90 mm; 1 year, 0.91 mm ± 0.96 mm; CG preop, 0.98 mm ± 0.87 mm; 1 year, 0.98 mm ± 0.87 mm and did not show any correlation with either the mesial/distal bone level or the initial buccal vertical defect at any point of time. CONCLUSIONS: These clinical results provide evidence that immediate implant placement without additional augmentation, but with immediate provisionalization might be a viable treatment alternative even with missing buccal plate in the esthetic maxillary zone.

Scientific Interests of 21st Century Clinical Oral Implant Research: Topical Trend Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Discrimination between ongoing and solved research questions may help to distinguish established dogmas from evidence-based implant dentistry. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate topics of interest in the field of oral implant science and evolving thematic trends in clinical studies during the last decade. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Electronic and manual searches of English literature were performed to identify clinical studies on oral implants. Out of 15,695 publications screened, 2,875 clinical investigations were included. RESULTS: Among the most prevalent topics were immediate loading (14.3%), bone substitutes (11.6%), lateral sinus grafting (10.7%), implant overdentures (10.5%), single-tooth implant crowns (8.8%), cross-arch implant bridges (8.0%), immediate implant placement (7.5%), implant surfaces (7.0%), simultaneous implant placement and augmentation (6.4%) as well as guided bone regeneration (5.3%). Significant increase of scientific interest was seen in immediate loading (+6.3%, p < .001), platform switching (+2.9%, p < 0.001), lateral sinus grafting (+2.3%, p = .024), flapless implant surgery (+2.2%, p < 0.001), and guided implant surgery (+1.9%, p = .011), while research on implant overdentures (-6.6%, p = .033) and tooth-to-implant connection (-2.5%, p = .010) was on the decline. CONCLUSIONS: Literature coverage, since the beginning of the 21st century, has seen greater focus on surgical topics compared to prosthodontic issues (p = .005) while only few topics experienced decrease of interest indicating scientific consensus.