Page 14 - GP Spring 2022

graft, soft tissue augmentation, and implant References keratinized mucosa on implant health: A systematic
osseointegration, if the final results are not 1. Buser, D., S. Ingimarsson, et al. (2002). “Long- review. J Periodontal 2013; 84:1755–1767.
well planned out. Even after a strategically term stability of osseointegrated implants in aug- 20. Suarez F, Chan HL, Monje A, Galindo- Moreno
planned surgical workflow, the restorative mented bone: a 5-year prospective study in partially P, Wang HL. Effect of the timing of restoration on
implant marginal bone loss: A systematic review. J
edentulous patients.” Int J
component can still be challenging in the Periodontics Restorative Dent 22(2): 109-117. Periodontol 2013; 84:159–169.)
aesthetic zone. Maintaining the papilla 2. Buser D, Dahlin C, Schenk RK (eds). Guided Bone 21. Roccuzzo M, Grasso G, Dalmasso P. Keratinized
in the aesthetic zone is of the utmost im- Regeneration in Implant Dentistry. Chicago: Quintes- mucosa around implants in partially edentulous
portance. The patient’s perception of the sence, 1994. posterior mandible: 10-year results of a prospective
papilla is subjective. The threshold of an 3. Ronald E. Jung, Simone I, Windisch, Ariane m. comparative study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016;
unattractive papilla, as judged by clinicians Eggenschwiler, Daniel S. Thoma, Franz E. Weber, 27:491–496.
and patients, is within 3 mm of the open Christoph H.F. Hammerle. A randomized controlled 22. Lin CY, Chen Z, Pan WL, Wang HL. Impact of
timing on soft tissue augmentation during implant
clinical trial evaluating clinical and radiological out-
gingival embrasure. 33,34 comes after 3 and 5 years of dental implants placed in treatment: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
bone regenerated by means of GBR techniques with Clin Oral Implants Res 2018; 29:508–521.
The provisional stage of the treatment is or without the addition of BMP-2 clinical oral im- 23. Oh SL, Masri RM, Williams DA, Ji C, Rom- berg
the most crucial stage of the restorative plants research Volume 20, issue 7 July 2009 pages E. Free gingival grafts for implants exhibiting lack
part. There are many ways to remold 660-666 of keratinized mucosa: A prospective controlled ran-
35
the soft tissue to accomplish the optimum 4. Liu J, Kerns DG. Mechanisms of guided bone re- domized clinical study. J Clin Periodontal 2017;44:
result with the provisional in the aesthet- generation: a review. Open Dent J. 2014; 16:56–65. 195–203.)
24. Thoma DS, Naenni N, Figuero E, et al. Effects of
10.2174/1874210601408010056.
ic zone. The provisional needs support in
5. Wang HL, Boyapati L. “PASS” principles for
Figure 29. Provisional restoration contour. soft tissue augmentation procedures on peri-implant
some areas and applied pressure in other
health or disease: A systematic review and meta-anal-
predictable bone regeneration. Implant Dent. 2006;
areas to accomplish the proper result. 36,37 15:8–17. ysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018;29(suppl 15): s32–
(Figures 29,30). 6. Benic GI, Hämmerle CH. Horizontal bone aug- s49.
mentation by means of guided bone regeneration. 25. Giannobile WV, Jung RE, Schwarz F, Groups of
Periodontal 2000. 2014; 66:13–40. doi: 10.1111/ the 2nd Osteology Foundation Consensus Meeting.
prd.12039. Evidence-based knowledge on the aesthetics and
7. Wallace SS, Froum SJ. Effect of maxillary sinus maintenance of peri-implant soft tissues: Osteology
augmentation on the survival of endosseous den- Foundation Consensus Report Part 1—Effects of soft
tal implants. A systematic review. Ann Periodontal. tissue augmentation procedures on the maintenance
2003; 8:328–343. of peri-implant soft tissue health. Clin Oral Implants
8. Chiapasco M, Casentini P, Zaniboni M. Bone aug- Res 2018;29(suppl 15): s7–s10.
Figure 30. Provisional restoration. mentation procedures in implant dentistry. Int J Oral 26. Nemcovsky CE, Artzi Z, Moses O. Rotated split
palatal flap for soft tissue primary coverage over
Maxillofac Implants. 2009; 24:237–259.
Figure 29. Provisional restoration contour.
9. Piattelli M, Favero GA, Scarano A, Orsini G, Pi- extraction sites with immediate implant placement.
Conclusion attelli A. Bone reactions to anorganic bovine bone Description of the surgical procedure and clinical re-
sults. J Periodontol 1999; 70:926–934.
(Bio-Oss) used in sinus augmentation procedures: a
The hardest part of any histologic long-term report of 20 cases in humans. Int 27. Tarun Kumar AB, Divya Gayatri PS, Triveni MG,
treatment plan is to J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1999; 14:835–840 Mehta DS. Palatal pedicle flap— Varied applications.
predict the final result 10. Avila G, Neiva R, Misch CE, Galindo-More- Int J Oral Health Sci 2015:106–112.
before the work has no P, Benavides E, Rudek I, Wang HL. Clinical 28. Garber DA, Belser UC. Restorative-driven im-
begun. Clinicians need and histologic outcomes after the use of a novel al- plant placement with restoration-generated site de-
to understand their lim- lograft for maxillary sinus augmentation: a case se- velopment. Com- pend Contin Educ Dent 1995;
itations in the science ries. Implant Dent. 2010; 19:330–341: 10.1097/ID. 16:796,798–802.
29. Cooper L, Pin-Harry O, Rule of Six - Diagnostic
0b013e3181e59b32
of dental implantology 11. Chasioti E, Chiang TF, Drew HJ, Quintessence and Therapeutic Guidelines for Single tooth implant
while treatment plan- international (berlin, Germany), ISSN: 1936-7163, success, compendium contin educ Feb 2013 volume
Figure 30. ning their patient’s cas- 2013 Nov-Dec; Vol.44(10), pp 763-71; 34, number 2) 6mm of inter-radicular space
Provisional es. Correct data gather- 12. Wu C; Su H; Karydis A; Anderson KM; Ghadri 30. (kobayashi E, Fluckiger L, Fujioka-Kobayashi
restoration. ing before treatment is N; Tang S; Wang Y; Bumgardner JD, Biomedical ma- M, et al. Comparative release of growth factors from
the key to any clinical success. Each case terial (Bristol, England) Biomed Mater, ISSN: 1748- PRP, PRF and advanced-PRF Clin Oral Investig
2016; 20:2353-2360)
needs to be evaluated based on the individ- 606x, 2017 Nov 10 Vol. 13 (1), pp. 015004 31. (Pratiwi R, Setiawatie EM, Multiple gingival re-
13. OwensKW,YuknaRA. Collagen membrane re-
ual. The treatment plan has to be custom- sorption in dogs: a comparative study. Implant Dent. cession coverage treated with vista technique using
ized for the patient and staged properly for 2001; 10:49–58. acellular dermal matrix combined with PRF case re-
optimum results. The success of this case 14. Dahlin et al. 1991a, b; Davar panah et al. 1991 port. odonto Dent J 2019; 6:56-61.)
was based on proper diagnosis, treatment 15. Simonis P. Dufour T. Tenenbaum H. Long-term 32. Tarnow DP, Cho SC, Wallace SS. The effect of
planning, well-organized data gathering, implant survival and success: a 10-16 years follow-up inter-implant distance on the height of inter-implant
and adequate staging of the case. Although, of none-submerged dental implants. Clinical oral im- bone crest. J Peri- odontol 2000; 71:546–549.
33. Tarnow DP, Magner AW, Fletcher P. The effect
in this case, with a low lip line there is more plants research volume 21, issue 7 pages 772-777 of the distance from the contact point to the crest of
16. Machtei E. The effect of membrane exposure on
forgiveness in the aesthetic outcome, the the outcome of regenerative procedures in human: a bone on the presence or absence of the inter- proxi-
authors were trying to create an appropri- meta- analysis. Journal of Periodontology volume 72, mal dental papilla. J Periodontal 1992; 63:995–996.
ate protocol for future implant cases in the issue April 2001 pages 512-516 34. Kokich VO Jr, Kiyak HA, Shapiro PA. Compar-
aesthetic zone. Every patient presents with 17. Jung,R , Fenner, N, Hammerle, C, Zitzmann, N. ing the perception of dentists and lay people to altered
different challenges and the clinician needs long-term outcome of implants placed with GBR us- dental esthetics. J Esthet Dent 1999; 11:311–324.
to use appropriate judgment in approach- ing resorbable and non-resorbable membrane after 35. Priest G. Developing optimal tissue profiles
implant level provisional restorations. Dent Today
ing each case. Additional case reports, doc- 12-14 years, Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 24, 2013, 1065– 2005; 24:96–100.
1073).
umentation, and long-term follow-ups need 18. Thoma DS, Naenni N, Figuero E, et al. Effects of 36. Santosa RE. Provisional restoration options in im-
to be done in order to present a definitive soft tissue augmentation procedures on peri-implant plant dentistry. Aust Dent J 2007; 52:234–242.
protocol on how to approach aesthetically health or disease: A systematic review and meta-anal- 37. Priest G. Esthetic potential of single-implant pro-
compromised patients. ysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018;29(suppl 15): s32– visional restorations: Selection criteria of available
s49. alternatives. J Esthet Restor Dent 2006; 18:326–338.
www.nysagd.org l Spring 2022 l GP 14 19. Lin GH, Chan HL, Wang HL. The significance of