We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
International Journal of Oral Implantology



Forgotten password?


Int J Oral Implantol (Berl) 11 (2018), No. 2     25. May 2018
Int J Oral Implantol (Berl) 11 (2018), No. 2  (25.05.2018)

Page 215-224, PubMed:29806668

5-year outcomes after coverage of soft tissue dehiscence around single implants: A prospective cohort study
Zucchelli, Giovanni / Felice, Pietro / Mazzotti, Claudio / Marzadori, Matteo / Mounssif, Ilham / Monaco, Carlo / Stefanini, Martina
Purpose: To report the 5-year clinical and aesthetic outcomes of a novel surgical-prosthetic approach for the treatment of buccal soft tissue dehiscence around single dental implants.
Materials and methods: Twenty patients with buccal soft tissues dehiscence around single implants in the aesthetic area were treated by removing the implant-supported crown, reducing the implant abutment, coronally advanced flap in combination with connective tissue graft and final restoration. After the first year, patients were recalled three times a year until the final clinical re-evaluation performed 5 years after the final prosthetic crown. Complications, bleeding on probing (BoP), peri-implant probing depth (PPD), clinical attachment level (CAL), keratinized tissue height (KTH), soft tissue coverage and thickness (STT), patient satisfaction (VAS) and aesthetic assessment (PES/WES) were evaluated 5 years after the final restoration.
Results: Of the 20 patients enrolled in the study, 19 completed the study at 5 years. A total of 99.2% mean soft tissue dehiscence coverage, with 79% of complete dehiscence coverage, was achieved at 5 years. A statistically significant increase in buccal soft tissue thickness (0.3 mm 0.1-0.4 P < 0.001) and keratinized tissue height (0.5 mm 0.0-1.0; P < 0.001) at 5 years with respect to 1 year was demonstrated. The patient aesthetic evaluation showed high VAS scores with no statistical difference between 1 year and 5 years (8.75 ± 1.02 and 8.95 ± 0.91 respectively). A statistical significant PES/WES score improvement was observed between baseline and 5 years (9.48 ± 2.68; P < 0.001), but not between 1 and 5 years.
Conclusions: Successful aesthetic and soft tissue dehiscence coverage outcomes were well maintained at 5 years. The strict regimen of post-surgical control visits and the emphasis placed on the control of the toothbrushing technique could be critical for the successful long-term maintenance of soft tissue dehiscence coverage results.

Conflict-of-interest statement: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Keywords: aesthetics, connective tissue, dental implant, mucogingival surgery, soft tissue dehiscence