What is the effect of soft tissue thickness on crestal bone loss around dental implants? A systematic review

The primary function of a dental implant is to act as an abutment for a prosthetic device, similar to a natural tooth root and crown. Any success criteria, therefore, must include first and foremost support of a functional prosthesis. In addition, although clinical criteria for prosthetic success are beyond the scope of this article, patient satisfaction with the esthetic appearance of the implant restoration is necessary in clinical practice. The restoring dentist designs and fabricates a prosthesis similar to one supported by a tooth, and as such often evaluates and treats the dental implant similarly to a natural tooth. Yet, fundamental differences in the support system between these entities should be recognized. The purpose of this article is to use a few indices developed for natural teeth as an index that is specific for endosteal root-form implants. This article is also intended to update and upgrade what is purported to be implant success, implant survival, and implant failure. The Health Scale presented in this article was developed and accepted by the International Congress of Oral Implantologists Consensus Conference for Implant Success in Pisa, Italy, October 2007.

The purpose of this study was to examine the most frequently used criteria to define treatment success in implant dentistry. An electronic MEDLINE/PubMED search was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials and prospective studies reporting on outcomes of implant dentistry. Only studies conducted with roughened surface implants and at least five-year follow-up were included. Data were analyzed for success at the implant level, peri-implant soft tissue, prosthetics, and patient satisfaction. Most frequently reported criteria for success at the implant level were mobility, pain, radiolucency, and peri-implant bone loss (> 1.5 mm), and for success at the peri-implant soft-tissue level, suppuration, and bleeding. The criteria for success at the prosthetic level were the occurrence of technical complications/prosthetic maintenance, adequate function, and esthetics during the five-year period. The criteria at patient satisfaction level were discomfort and paresthesia, satisfaction with appearance, and ability to chew/taste. Success in implant dentistry should ideally evaluate a long-term primary outcome of an implant-prosthetic complex as a whole.

The biologic width around implants has been well documented in the literature. Once an implant is uncovered, vertical bone loss of 1.5 to 2 mm is evidenced apical to the newly established implant-abutment interface. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the lateral dimension of the bone loss at the implant-abutment interface and to determine if this lateral dimension has an effect on the height of the crest of bone between adjacent implants separated by different distances. Radiographic measurements were taken in 36 patients who had 2 adjacent implants present. Lateral bone loss was measured from the crest of bone to the implant surface. In addition, the crestal bone loss was also measured from a line drawn between the tops of the adjacent implants. The data were divided into 2 groups, based on the inter-implant distance at the implant shoulder. The results demonstrated that the lateral bone loss was 1.34 mm from the mesial implant shoulder and 1.40 mm from the distal implant shoulder between the adjacent implants. In addition, the crestal bone loss for implants with a greater than 3 mm distance between them was 0.45 mm, while the implants that had a distance of 3 mm or less between them had a crestal bone loss of 1.04 mm. This study demonstrates that there is a lateral component to the bone loss around implants in addition to the more commonly discussed vertical component. The clinical significance of this phenomenon is that the increased crestal bone loss would result in an increase in the distance between the base of the contact point of the adjacent crowns and the crest of bone. This could determine whether the papilla was present or absent between 2 implants as has previously been reported between 2 teeth. Selective utilization of implants with a smaller diameter at the implant-abutment interface may be beneficial when multiple implants are to be placed in the esthetic zone so that a minimum of 3 mm of bone can be retained between them at the implant-abutment level.