LOGIN
 
Share Page:
Back

Volume 26 , Issue 1
January/February 2011

Pages 179187


Facial Gingival Tissue Stability Following Immediate Placement and Provisionalization of Maxillary Anterior Single Implants: A 2- to 8-Year Follow-up

Joseph Y. K. Kan, DDS, MS/Kitichai Rungcharassaeng, DDS, MS/Jaime L. Lozada, DDS/Grenith Zimmerman, PhD


PMID: 21365054

Purpose: This is a follow-up of an earlier 1-year prospective study on implant success rates and the peri-implant response after immediate placement and provisionalization of single implants in the esthetic zone. The effects of gingival biotype on the peri-implant tissues were also evaluated. Materials and Methods: Thirty-five patients were evaluated clinically and radiographically at presurgical examination (T0), immediately after immediate implant placement and provisionalization (T1), 1 year after implant surgery (T2), and the latest follow-up appointment (T3). Data were analyzed using t tests and repeated-measures analysis of variance at the significance level of α = .05. Results: After a mean follow-up time of 4 years (range, 2 to 8.2 years), all implants remained in function. At T3, the mean mesial and distal marginal bone level changes were significantly greater than those observed at T2. At T3, the mean mesial and distal papilla level changes were significantly smaller than those observed at T2, whereas the mean facial gingival level change was significantly greater than that observed at T2. Sites with a thick gingival biotype exhibited significantly smaller changes in facial gingival levels than sites with a thin gingival biotype at both T2 and T3. Conclusions: Favorable implant success rates and peri-implant tissue responses can be achieved with this procedure. While the results suggest the possibility of spontaneous papilla regeneration over time following this procedure, continuing recession of the facial gingival tissue was also observed. The effect of gingival biotype on peri-implant tissue response seemed to be limited only to facial gingival recession and did not influence interproximal papilla or proximal marginal bone levels. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2011;26:179187

Key words: dental implants, esthetics, gingival biotype, gingival recession, immediate implant placement, immediate loading, immediate provisionalization, papilla, single tooth replacement


Full Text PDF File | Order Article

 

 
Get Adobe Reader
Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view PDF files. This is a free program available from the Adobe web site.
Follow the download directions on the Adobe web site to get your copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader.

 

© 2014 Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc JOMI Home
Current Issue
Ahead of Print
Archive
Author Guidelines
About
Accepted Manuscripts
Submission Form
Submit
Reprints
Permission
Advertising
Quintessence Home
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
About Us
Contact Us
Help