Stabilization Techniques for Soft Tissue Grafting Around Dental Implants: Case Report.

INTRODUCTION: Implants that lack keratinized tissue (KT) have been associated with increased plaque accumulation, gingival inflammation or hue of metal showing through the tissue. Free gingival grafts (FGGs) are a predictable treatment for minimal or lack of KT. FGGs can increase the zone of KT around teeth and implants alike. Despite predictability of FGGs, stabilizing the graft around implants can be challenging, but is critical for success. Little information is available regarding ways to stabilize FGGs around implants. Acrylic or composite stents are a viable option for obtaining graft stability and support during the healing process. CASE PRESENTATION: This case report highlights the practicality of using acrylic or composite stents for FGG stabilization with successful outcomes. Two patients presented with dental implants, with minimal or lack of KT requiring soft tissue augmentation. FGGs were harvested from the palate and fitted around implant carriers allowing stabilization and adequate suturing. Custom-made acrylic or composite stabilization stents were fabricated to fit around implant carriers, which were screwed into the implant platform, and hollowed out internally to provide space for the graft. Postoperative visits showed healthy, stable zones of KT in both cases. CONCLUSION: The customized acrylic or composite stents allowed stabilization of the FGGs with successful outcome.

Soft Tissue Changes Around Immediately Placed Implants: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses With at Least 12 Months of Follow-Up After Functional Loading.

BACKGROUND: Immediate implant placement (IIP) is predictable but can lead to esthetic challenges, including midfacial recession (MFR) and papillary height (PH) loss. The aim of this systematic review is to examine the effect of IIP on MFR and PH after at least 12 months of functional loading. METHODS: Literature review of the Cochrane and MEDLINE electronic databases and hand search up to January 2016 identified eligible studies. Four reviewers independently assessed data quality and methodology. RESULTS: A total of 106 articles satisfied the inclusion criteria. Twelve studies qualified for three meta-analyses. MFR was slightly less in conventional implant placement (CIP) than in IIP, but the result was not statistically significant (mean difference [MD] -0.064 mm; P = 0.687). Similarly, there was better PH maintenance in CIPs, with statistical significance for distal PH (DPH) only (cumulative PH: MD -0.396, P = 0.010; DPH: MD -0.765, P <0.001; mesial PH [MPH]: MD -0.285, P = 0.256). MFR was slightly less in IIP with thick versus thin biotypes, but not statistically significantly different (MD -0.373, P = 0.243). Pooled data showed statistically significantly less MFR and better PH maintenance in IIP with thick biotype (MFR: MD -0.478, P <0.001; cumulative PH: MD -0.287, P <0.001; MPH: MD -0.288, P <0.001; DPH: MD -0.310, P <0.001). Non-significantly less MFR (MD 0.253, P = 0.384) and significantly better PH maintenance were found in IIP with immediate provisionalization versus conventional restoration (MD -0.519, P = 0.028). CONCLUSIONS: IIP in thick biotype and with immediate provisionalization had less MFR and better PH than IIP in thin biotype or with delayed restoration. However, these findings should be interpreted with caution due to high heterogeneity, which was calculated using comprehensive meta-analysis statistical software that took into account sample size and different treatment groups, and limited qualified studies.