Refine
Document Type
- Article (2)
Language
- English (2) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (2)
Keywords
- dental implants (2) (remove)
Institute
- Medizin (2)
Background: The present study aimed to assess the three‐dimensional changes following soft tissue augmentation using free gingival grafts (FGG) at implant sites over a 3‐month follow‐up period.
Methods: This study included 12 patients exhibiting deficient keratinized tissue (KT) width (i.e., <2 mm) at the vestibular aspect of 19 implants who underwent soft tissue augmentation using FGG at second stage surgery following implant placement. Twelve implants were considered for the statistical analysis (n = 12). The region of interest (ROI) was intraorally scanned before surgery (S0), immediately post‐surgery (S1), 30 (S2) and 90 (S3) days after augmentation. Digital scanned files were used for quantification of FGG surface area (SA) and converted to standard tessellation language (STL) format for superimposition and evaluation of thickness changes between the corresponding time points. FGG shrinkage (%) in terms of SA and thickness was calculated between the assessed time points.
Results: Mean FGG SA amounted to 91 (95% CI: 63 to 119), 76.2 (95% CI: 45 to 106), and 61.3 (95% CI: 41 to 81) mm2 at S1, S2, and S3, respectively. Mean FGG SA shrinkage rate was 16.3% (95% CI: 3 to 29) from S1 to S2 and 33% (95% CI: 19 to 46) from S1 to S3. Mean thickness gain from baseline (S0) to S1, S2, and S3 was 1.31 (95% CI: 1.2 to 1.4), 0.82 (95% CI: 0.5 to 1.12), and 0.37 (0.21 to 0.5) mm, respectively. FGG thickness shrinkage was of 38% (95% CI: 17.6 to 58) from S1 to S2 and 71.8% (95% CI: 60 to 84) from S1 to S3. Dimensional changes from S1 to S3 were statistically significant, P <0.017. Soft tissue healing was uneventful in all patients.
Conclusions: The present three‐dimensional assessment suggests that FGG undergo significant dimensional changes in SA and thickness over a 3‐month healing period.
Objective: To compare discomfort/pain following periodontal probing around teeth and peri‐implant probing around implants with or without platform switching.
Methods: Two dentists recruited and examined 65 patients, each of them exhibiting a dental implant with a contralateral tooth. Only two types of implants were included: one with and one without platform switching. Periodontal and peri‐implant probing depths (PPD) and probing attachment level (PAL) were assessed. Whether implant or tooth was measured first was randomly assigned. Immediately after probing, patients scored discomfort/pain using a visual analogue scale (VAS). The emergence profiles of implant crowns were assessed as angles between interproximal surfaces on radiographs.
Results: Sixty‐five patients (age 69; 63/76 years [median; lower/upper quartile]; 38 females, 11 smokers) were examined. With the exception of mean PPD and PAL (p < .05) clinical parameters (PPD, PAL, bleeding on probing, suppuration) were well balanced between implants and teeth. Peri‐implant probing (VAS: 10; 0.75/16.25) caused significantly (p < .001) more discomfort/pain than periodontal probing (4; 0/10). Logistic regression analysis identified a larger difference between discomfort/pain for peri‐implant and periodontal probing in the maxilla than the mandible (p = .003). Comparing discomfort/pain between implants maxilla (p = .006) and emergence profile (p = .015) were associated with discomfort/pain. Type of implant (with/without platform switching) had no significant effect on discomfort/pain.
Conclusions: Peri‐implant probing caused significantly more discomfort/pain than periodontal probing. Implant design with/without platform switching failed to have a significant effect on discomfort/pain.