Dataset Information

Radiographic evaluation of a cross-shaped incision technique for thick-gingiva and thin-gingiva patients treated with implant-supported fixed prosthesis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

To evaluate a cross-shaped incision technique for thick-gingiva and thin-gingiva patients treated with implant-supported fixed prosthesis.

Methods

Total 55 patients receiving cross-shaped incision were assigned into thick-gingiva group (29 cases) and thin-gingiva group (26 cases). Follow-up was performed at 3 and 12-month after final restoration.

Results

Mesial and distal papilla height was significantly greater in thick-gingiva group than thin-gingiva group at 3 and 12 months, while periodontal depth and crestal marginal bone level around implant had no significant difference between the two groups during follow-up. No case of recession of buccal marginal gingiva was observed in thick-gingiva group. However, the recession of marginal gingiva of buccal aspect of the crown was found in 5 patients (19.2%) with thin-gingiva.

Conclusions

The cross-shaped incision may be applied to reconstruct gingival papillae and avoid the gingival recession in patients with thick-gingiva phenotype. Trial registration This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (registration number NCT04706078, date 12 January 2021, Retrospectively registered).

SUBMITTER: Luo W

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8684668 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Radiographic evaluation of a cross-shaped incision technique for thick-gingiva and thin-gingiva patients treated with implant-supported fixed prosthesis.

Luo Wen W Wang Xinyu X Chen Yaqian Y Hong Yuping Y Qu Yili Y Man Yi Y Wu Yingying Y

BMC oral health 20211218 1

<h4>Background</h4>To evaluate a cross-shaped incision technique for thick-gingiva and thin-gingiva patients treated with implant-supported fixed prosthesis.<h4>Methods</h4>Total 55 patients receiving cross-shaped incision were assigned into thick-gingiva group (29 cases) and thin-gingiva group (26 cases). Follow-up was performed at 3 and 12-month after final restoration.<h4>Results</h4>Mesial and distal papilla height was significantly greater in thick-gingiva group than thin-gingiva group at 3 ...[more]

PMID: 34922521

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesSingle denture rehabilitated patients have negative appraisals regarding oral function, mostly associated by stability and retention issues regarding mandibular prosthetics. Therefore, this study assessed patients' occlusal equilibration, muscle activity, and oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) receiving milled removable or fixed mandibular implant retained prostheses.Materials and methodsTwenty-two edentulous mandibular ridges patients were randomly distributed into two groups based on the definitive prosthesis received. Group I: Removable mandibular implant-supported overdenture, Group II: Implant retained fixed prosthesis. Occlusal equilibration was evaluated utilizing Occlusense, muscle activity via Electromyograph (EMG) at delivery, after one, and three months. The OHRQoL was evaluated by Oral Health Impact Profile questionnaire (OHIP-19) before delivery and after follow-ups. Data were collected, tabulated, and analyzed, utilizing independent t-test and One-way ANOVA followed Tukey`s post-hoc test. Significance level set at P ≤ 0.05.ResultsGroups I &II showed significant improvement in occlusal equilibration, muscle activity and OHRQoL. Group II demonstrated significantly higher improvement than group I in occlusal equilibration associated with muscle activity after 1 month, and in functional limitations domain in OHRQoL questionnaire after 3 months.ConclusionImplant retained mandibular prosthesis showed improvement in occlusal equilibration, muscle activity, and OHRQoL regardless of prosthesis type employed. Fixed implant-supported prosthesis revealed better outcomes than removable mandibular implant-supported overdenture concerning occlusal equilibration, muscle activity, and OHRQoL regarding functional limitations.Clinical relevanceImplant retained mandibular prosthesis is one of best treatment options for single mandibular completely edentulous patients, as dental implants improved occlusal equilibration, muscle activity, and OHRQoL.

Project description:ObjectivesThe aim of this systematic review was to analyze post-loading implant loss for implant-supported prostheses in edentulous jaws, regarding a potential impact of implant location (maxilla vs. mandible), implant number per patient, type of prosthesis (removable vs. fixed), and type of attachment system (screw-retained, ball vs. bar vs. telescopic crown).Material and methodsA systematic literature search for randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) or prospective studies was conducted within PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase. Quality assessment of the included studies was carried out, and the review was structured according to PRISMA. Implant loss and corresponding 3- and 5-year survival rates were estimated by means of a Poisson regression model with total exposure time as offset.ResultsAfter title, abstract, and full-text screening, 54 studies were included for qualitative analyses. Estimated 5-year survival rates of implants were 97.9% [95% CI 97.4; 98.4] in the maxilla and 98.9% [95% CI 98.7; 99.1] in the mandible. Corresponding implant loss rates per 100 implant years were significantly higher in the maxilla (0.42 [95% CI 0.33; 0.53] vs. 0.22 [95% CI 0.17; 0.27]; P = 0.0001). Implant loss rates for fixed restorations were significantly lower compared to removable restorations (0.23 [95% CI 0.18; 0.29] vs. 0.35 [95% CI 0.28; 0.44]; P = 0.0148). Four implants and a fixed restoration in the mandible resulted in significantly higher implant loss rates compared to five or more implants with a fixed restoration. The analysis of one implant and a mandibular overdenture also revealed higher implant loss rates than an overdenture on two implants. The same (lower implant number = higher implant loss rate) applied when comparing 2 vs. 4 implants and a mandibular overdenture. Implant loss rates for maxillary overdentures on <4 implants were significantly higher than for four implants (7.22 [95% CI 5.41; 9.64] vs. 2.31 [1.56; 3.42]; P < 0.0001).ConclusionsImplant location, type of restoration, and implant number do have an influence on the estimated implant loss rate. Consistent reporting of clinical studies is necessary and high-quality studies are needed to confirm the present results.

Dataset Information

Radiographic evaluation of a cross-shaped incision technique for thick-gingiva and thin-gingiva patients treated with implant-supported fixed prosthesis.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Radiographic evaluation of a cross-shaped incision technique for thick-gingiva and thin-gingiva patients treated with implant-supported fixed prosthesis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets