| Autor: |
Bressan E; Department of Neurosciences, School of Dentistry, University of Padova, Via Giustiniani 2, 35100 Padova, Italy., Zucchelli G; Periodontology Unit, Department of Biomedical and Neuromotor Sciences, Bologna University, 40126 Bologna, Italy.; Department of Biomedical, Surgical, and Dental Sciences, University of Milano, 20122 Milan, Italy.; Division of Prosthodontics and Implant Prosthodontics, Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Genova, Largo R. Benzi 10, 16132 Genova, Italy., Tommasato G; Department of Biomedical, Surgical, and Dental Sciences, University of Milano, 20122 Milan, Italy., Pesce P; Division of Prosthodontics and Implant Prosthodontics, Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Genova, Largo R. Benzi 10, 16132 Genova, Italy., Canullo L; Division of Prosthodontics and Implant Prosthodontics, Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Genova, Largo R. Benzi 10, 16132 Genova, Italy., Consensus Meeting Group Iao, Grusovin MG; Department of Dentistry, Università Vita-Salute San Raffaele, 20132 Milan, Italy. |
| Abstrakt: |
Background and Objectives : The influence of the quantity and quality of peri-implant soft tissue on implant health and long-term maintenance is controversial. This consensus aimed to assess the importance of peri-implant soft tissue by analyzing four aspects: the role of keratinized mucosa (KM), the efficacy of specific collagen matrix, the influence of abutment material, and soft-tissue thickness. Materials and Methods : Active members of the Italian Academy of Osseointegration (IAO) participated in the consensus. Four systematic reviews were conducted, and their results were discussed to provide guidelines on the importance of soft tissue around implants. The first review evaluated the effect of KM on soft-tissue health, peri-implant bone loss, and patient-related variables. The second one analyzed if there was a specific type of matrix that provided better results in terms of peri-implant buccal soft-tissue thickness and keratinized mucosa width compared to autogenous soft-tissue graft. The third review evaluated the influence of different abutment materials on the soft tissues, and the fourth assessed the effect of soft-tissue thickness on peri-implant marginal bone loss (MBL). Results and Conclusions : The agreements reached by the assembly were as follows: the presence of supra-periosteal keratinized tissue is considered to favorably influence peri-implant health and aesthetics but had no relation to preventing bone crest resorption unrelated to infection. It facilitates patient cleaning around implants and reduces patient-reported pain. The free gingival graft (FGG) is considered the best in terms of supra-periosteal KM increase. Connective tissue grafts (CTG) perform better than volume-stable collagen matrices to increase soft-tissue thickness. Collagen matrices reduce surgical time and patient morbidity and can give better camouflaging. The influence of abutment material (titanium or zirconia) on MBL remains controversial, and no conclusion could be reached on this issue. Peri-implant soft-tissue health and recession seem not to be influenced by abutment material, but data are limited to zirconia and titanium. Although this systematic review highlighted the absence of a correlation between soft-tissue thickness and MBL, the assembly failed to find a consensus on this issue. |
