The peri-implant phenotype

This commentary proposes a definition for the term - peri- implant phenotype- and provides a comprehensive description of all its components.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/154670/1/jper10524.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/154670/2/jper10524_am.pd

Outcome measures and methods of assessment of soft-tissue augmentation interventions in the context of dental implant therapy: A systematic review of clinical studies published in the last 10 years.

AIM The aim of the study was to identify and report outcome measures and methods of assessment on soft-tissue augmentation interventions in the context of dental implant therapy reported in clinical studies published in the last 10 years. MATERIAL AND METHODS The protocol of this PRISMA 2020-compliant systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021252214). A literature search was conducted to identify articles that met the pre-established eligibility criteria. Data of interest, with an emphasis on outcome measures, were extracted. For each outcome, specific methods and timing of assessment were described in detail. Following a critical qualitative analysis of the data, outcome measures were categorized. Primary outcomes were identified and the frequency of reporting in the selected articles was calculated. Additionally, risk of bias assessments were performed for individual articles and primary outcomes. RESULTS Ninety-two articles, of which 39 reported randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 20 reported non-RCTs, and 33 reported case series studies, were selected. Outcome measures were categorized into either investigator-evaluated outcome measures (i.e., clinical, digital imaging, esthetic, histologic, biomarker, and safety) or patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Clinical outcomes were the most frequently reported type of outcome. Considering all categories, the most frequently reported primary outcomes were facial mucosa thickness assessed with clinical methods (22.83%), facial keratinized mucosa width assessed with clinical methods (19.57%), facial mucosal margin position/recession assessed with clinical methods (18.48%), facial mucosa thickness assessed with digital imaging methods (11.96%), facial soft-tissue volume assessed with digital imaging methods (9.78%), and supracrestal tissue height assessed with clinical methods (9.78%). No distinguishable patterns of association between specific types or quality (level of bias) of clinical studies and the choice of primary outcomes were observed. CONCLUSION Clinical research on peri-implant soft-tissue augmentation has progressively increased in the last 10 years. Although clinical outcome measures were the most frequently reported outcomes in the selected literature, trends in the field are indicative of a shift from traditional clinical assessment methods to the use of digital technologies. PROMs were generally underreported but should be considered an integral methodological component in future clinical studies

Outcome measures and methods of assessment of soft tissue augmentation interventions in the context of dental implant therapy: A systematic review of clinical studies published in the last 10 years.

AIM To identify and report outcome measures and methods of assessment on soft tissue augmentation interventions in the context of dental implant therapy reported in clinical studies published in the last 10 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS The protocol of this Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020-compliant systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021252214). A literature search was conducted to identify articles that met the pre-established eligibility criteria. Data of interest, with an emphasis on outcome measures, were extracted. For each outcome, specific methods and timing of assessment were described in detail. Following a critical qualitative analysis of the data, outcome measures were categorized. Primary outcomes were identified, and the frequency of reporting in the selected articles was calculated. Additionally, risk-of-bias assessments were performed for individual articles and primary outcomes. RESULTS Ninety-two articles, of which 39 reported randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 20 non-RCTs, and 33 case series studies, were selected. Outcome measures were categorized into either investigator-evaluated outcome measures (i.e., clinical, digital imaging, aesthetic, histological, biomarker, and safety) or patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Clinical outcomes were the most frequently reported type of outcome. Considering all categories, the most frequently reported primary outcomes were facial mucosa thickness assessed with clinical methods (22.83%), facial keratinized mucosa width assessed with clinical methods (19.57%), facial mucosal margin position/recession assessed with clinical methods (18.48%), facial mucosa thickness assessed with digital imaging methods (11.96%), facial soft tissue volume assessed with digital imaging methods (9.78%), and supracrestal tissue height assessed with clinical methods (9.78%). No distinguishable patterns of association between specific types or quality (level of bias) of clinical studies and the choice of primary outcomes were observed. CONCLUSIONS Clinical research on peri-implant soft tissue augmentation has progressively increased in the last 10 years. Although clinical outcome measures were the most frequently reported outcomes in the selected literature, trends in the field are indicative of a shift from traditional clinical assessment methods to the use of digital technologies. PROMs were generally under-reported but should be considered an integral methodological component in future clinical studies

Influence of Alveolar Ridge Morphology and Guide-hole Design on the Accuracy of Static Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery with two Implant Macro-designs: An in Vitro Study.

OBJECTIVES The primary aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the influence of alveolar ridge morphologies on the accuracy of static Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery (sCAIS). The secondary aims were to evaluate the influence of guide-hole design and implant macro-design on the accuracy of the final implant position. METHODS Eighteen standardized partially edentulous maxillary models with two different types of alveolar ridge morphologies were used. Each model was scanned via cone beam computer tomography prior to implant placement and scanned with a laboratory scanner prior to and following implant placement using sCAIS. The postsurgical scans were superimposed on the initial treatment planning position to measure the deviations between planned and postsurgical implant positions. RESULTS Seventy-two implants were equally distributed to the study groups. Implants placed in healed alveolar ridges showed significantly lower mean deviations at the crest (0.36 ± 0.17 mm), apex (0.69 ± 0.36 mm), and angular deviation (1.86 ± 0.99°), compared to implants placed in fresh extraction sites (0.80 ± 0.29 mm, 1.61 ± 0.59 mm, and 4.33 ± 1.87°; all p<0.0001). Implants placed with a sleeveless guide-hole design demonstrated significantly lower apical (1.02 ± 0.66 mm) and angular (2.72 ± 1.93°) deviations compared to those placed with manufacturer's sleeves (1.27 ± 0.67 mm; p=0.01, and 3.46 ± 1.9°; p=0.02). Deep-threaded tapered bone level implants exhibited significantly lower deviations at the crest (0.49 ± 0.28 mm), apex (0.97 ± 0.63 mm), and angular deviations (2.63 ± 1.85°) compared to shallow-threaded parallel-walled bone level implants (0.67 ± 0.34 mm; p=0.0005, 1.32 ± 0.67 mm; p=0.003, and 3.56 ± 1.93°; p=0.01). CONCLUSIONS The accuracy of the final implant position with sCAIS is determined by the morphology of the alveolar ridge, the design of the guide holes, and the macrodesign of the implant. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE Higher accuracy in the final implant position was observed with implants placed in healed alveolar ridge morphologies, in implants with deep-threaded tapered macro-design, and when sleeveless surgical guide holes were used

Accuracy of keyless vs drill-key implant systems for static computer-assisted implant surgery using two guide-hole designs compared to freehand implant placement: an in vitro study.

PURPOSE This in vitro study aimed at comparing the accuracy of freehand implant placement with static computer-assisted implant surgery (sCAIS), utilizing a keyless and a drill-key implant system and two guide-hole designs. METHODS A total of 108 implants were placed in 18 partially edentulous maxillary models simulating two different alveolar ridge morphologies. 3D digital deviations between pre-planned and post-operative implant positions were obtained. Guide material reduction was assessed in the keyless implant system for the manufacturer's sleeve and sleeveless guide-hole designs. RESULTS sCAIS using a sleeveless guide-hole design demonstrated smaller mean angular, crestal and apical deviations compared to sCAIS utilizing a manufacturer's sleeve and the freehand group (2.6 ± 1.6°, vs 3.3 ± 1.9°, vs 4.0 ± 1.9°; 0.5 ± 0.3 mm, vs 0.6 ± 0.3 mm, vs 0.8 ± 0.3 mm; and 1.0 ± 0.5 mm, vs 1.2 ± 0.7 mm, vs 1.5 ± 0.6 mm). Smaller angular and apical mean deviations were observed in the keyless implant system as compared with the drill-key implant system (3.1 ± 1.7°, vs 3.5 ± 1.9°, p = 0.03; and 1.2 ± 0.6 mm, vs 1.4 ± 0.7 mm, p = 0.045). Overall, smaller angular, crestal, and apical deviations (p < 0.0001) were observed in healed alveolar ridges (2.4 ± 1.7°, 0.5 ± 0.3 mm, and 0.9 ± 0.5 mm) than in extraction sockets (4.2 ± 1.6°, 0.8 ± 0.3 mm, and 1.6 ± 0.5 mm). Higher mean volumetric material reduction was observed in sleeveless than in manufacturer's sleeve guide-holes (- 0.10 ± 0.15 mm3, vs - 0.03 ± 0.03 mm3, p = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS Higher final implant positional accuracy was observed in sCAIS for the keyless implant system, with a sleeveless guide-hole design, and in healed ridges. Sleeveless guide holes resulted in higher volumetric material reduction compared with the manufacturer's sleeve

Alveolar ridge preservation reduces the need for ancillary bone augmentation in the context of implant therapy.

BACKGROUND There is limited information on the need for bone augmentation in the context of delayed implant placement whether alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) is previously performed or not. The primary aim of this retrospective cohort study was to evaluate the efficacy of ARP therapy after tooth extraction compared with unassisted socket healing (USH) in reducing the need for ancillary bone augmentation before or at the time of implant placement. METHODS Adult subjects that underwent non-molar single tooth extraction with or without simultaneous ARP therapy were included in this study. Cone beam computed tomography scans obtained before tooth extraction and after a variable healing period were used to record the baseline facial bone thickness and to virtually plan implant placement according to a standard method. A logistic regression model was used to evaluate the effect of facial alveolar bone thickness upon tooth extraction and baseline therapy (USH or ARP) on the need for additional bone augmentation, adjusting for several covariates (i.e., age, sex, baseline KMW, and tooth type). RESULTS One hundred and forty subjects that were equally distributed between both baseline therapy groups constituted the study population. Implant placement was deemed virtually feasible in all study sites. Simultaneous bone augmentation was considered necessary in 60% and 11.4% of the sites in the USH and ARP group, respectively. Most of these sites (64.2% in the USH group and 87.5% in the ARP group) exhibited a thin facial bone phenotype (<1 mm) at baseline. Logistic regression revealed that the odds of not needing ancillary bone augmentation were 17.8 times higher in sites that received ARP therapy. Furthermore, the need for additional bone augmentation was reduced 7.7 times for every 1 mm increase in facial bone thickness, regardless of baseline therapy. CONCLUSIONS Based on a digital analysis, ARP therapy, compared with USH, and thick facial alveolar bone largely reduce the need for ancillary bone augmentation at the time of implant placement in non-molar sites

Non-invasive assessment of peri-implant mucosal thickness: A cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND This study aimed to evaluate the reliability and reproducibility of different non-invasive methods for the assessment of peri-implant mucosal thickness. METHODS Subjects with two adjacent dental implants in the central maxillary region were included in this study. Three different methods to assess facial mucosal thickness (FMT) were compared: digital file superimposition using Digital Imaging and Communication in Medicine (DICOM) and stereolithography (STL) files of the arch of interest (DICOM-STL), DICOM files alone, and non-ionizing ultrasound (US). Inter-rater reliability agreements between different assessment methods were analyzed using inter-class correlation coefficients (ICCs). RESULTS A total of 50 subjects with 100 bone-level implants constituted the study population. Assessment of FMT using STL and DICOM files demonstrated excellent inter-rater reliability agreement. Mean ICC values of 0.97 and 0.95 were observed in the DICOM-STL and DICOM groups, respectively. Comparison between the DICOM-STL and US revealed good agreement, with an ICC of 0.82 (95% CI: 0.74 to 0.88) and a mean difference of -0.13 ± 0.50 mm (-1.13 to 0.86). Comparison between DICOM files alone versus US showed good agreement, with an ICC of 0.81 (95% CI: 0.73 to 0.89) and a mean difference of -0.23 ± 0.46 mm (-1.12 to 0.67). Comparison between DICOM-STL and DICOM files revealed excellent agreement, with an ICC of 0.94 (95% CI: 0.91 to 0.96) and a mean difference of 0.1 ± 0.29 mm (LOA -0.47 to 0.46). CONCLUSIONS Quantification of peri-implant mucosal thickness via analysis of DICOM-STL files, DICOM files, or US assessment are comparably reliable and reproducible methods

Accuracy of implant placement in the posterior maxillary region depending on the alveolar residual bone height and sinus morphology: An in vitro study.

OBJECTIVES The primary aim of this in vitro study was to assess the effect of alveolar residual bone height in the posterior maxilla on the accuracy of the final implant position via free-handed and static Computer-Assisted Implant Placement (sCAIP). The secondary aim was to evaluate the influence of the maxillary sinus morphology on the accuracy of final implant position. MATERIALS AND METHODS Partially edentulous standardized maxillary models simulating three different residual bone heights and different sinus floor morphologies were investigated. One-hundred eighty equally distributed implants, which were placed either free-handed or sCAIP, constituted the study sample. 3D digital deviations were obtained by superimposing the post-surgical scans on the initial treatment plan. RESULTS Angular and linear deviation assessment demonstrated higher implant position accuracy in the sCAIP group. sCAIP revealed similar outcomes independently of the alveolar bone height and sinus floor morphology. Contrarily, in the free-handed group, alveolar bone height and sinus morphology statistically affected the final implant position. Non-parametric three-way ANOVA showed significance for implant placement protocol (p < .0001) and alveolar bone height (p ≤ .02) when angular, and linear deviations were evaluated. Sinus morphology was statistically significantly associated with angular deviation (p = .0009). CONCLUSIONS sCAIP demonstrated higher 3D implant position accuracy. Alveolar bone height (strongly) and sinus morphology are associated with the accuracy of final implant position when the free-handed implant protocol is followed. However, these anatomical factors did not affect final implant position during sCAIP

Histological assessment and gene expression analysis of intra-oral soft tissue graft donor sites

Aim To determine the structural and gene expression features of different intra-oral soft tissue donor sites (i.e., anterior palate, posterior palate, maxillary tuberosity and retromolar pad). Materials and Methods Standardized mucosal tissue punch biopsies were collected from at least one donor site per subject. Histological processing was performed to determine tissue morphometry and quantify collagen composition. Site-specific gene distribution was mapped using targeted gene expression analysis and validated using real time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR). Results A total of 50 samples from 37 subjects were harvested. Epithelial thickness did not differ between sites. However, lamina propria was thicker in the maxillary tuberosity (2.55 ± 0.92 mm) and retromolar pad (1.98 ± 0.71 mm) than in the lateral palate. Type I collagen was the predominant structural protein in the lamina propria (75.06%–80.21%). Genes involving collagen maturation and extracellular matrix regulation were highly expressed in the maxillary tuberosity and retromolar pad, while lipogenesis-associated genes were markedly expressed in the lateral palate. The retromolar pad showed the most distinct gene expression profile, and the anterior and posterior palate displayed similar transcription profiles. Conclusions Tissue samples harvested from the anterior and posterior palate differed morphologically from those from the maxillary tuberosity and retromolar pad. Each intra-oral site showed a unique gene expression profile, which might impact their biological behaviour and outcomes of soft tissue augmentation procedures

Accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography in imaging the components of the periodontal phenotype

The components and dimensions of the periodontal and peri-implant phenotype have a high relevance in contemporary dental research and should be taken into consideration in the decision-making process in the management of a variety of clinical scenarios to optimize the outcomes of therapy. Various assessment methods for quantifying and classifying the phenotypical dimensions have emerged and developed in recent decades. Nevertheless, the use of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans remains the most commonly used approach worldwide. However, the accuracy to adequately imaging and measuring the dimensions of the hard and soft tissue components around teeth may represent a significant challenge in different clinical scenarios due to factors such as the age of the patient and motion during the scan, presence of metallic artifacts causing streaks and gray-value distortion, overlapping of soft tissue structures, machine performance, file processing, and small voxel size among others. These factors pose a particular challenge when tiny structures are under investigation, for example, the buccal/lingual bony or soft tissue layer of lower/upper incisors. Therefore, this review addresses the underlying technical information of the use of CBCT scans, and suggests some recommendations on the utilization of this method of assessment to optimally use it despite its' system-inherent limitations