Introduction
Dental implants are most popular for substitute of lacking enamel and gained international reputation because of their excessive total success fee within the medical observe.1,2 Nonetheless, the general success fee of dental implants is related to the well being of peri-implant tissues and lowered by the issues of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis.3 Peri-implantitis is a situation which is poorly understood and troublesome to handle, due to this fact it’s important to higher stop it with cautious management of all phases of the remedy course of.4 The well being and high quality of peri-implant tender tissues is influenced by many elements. For instance, the presence or absence of ample keratinized mucosa surrounding an implant primarily impacts the well being of peri-implant soft-tissues. Equally, varied features associated to the prosthodontic remedies similar to poor remedy planning, impression taking, laboratory selections, temporization, poorly designed restorations and cementation could have long-term penalties because of contamination of the implant surfaces and influencing the well being of peri-implant tissues.5 The style during which a dental implant is restored considerably contributes to the long-term prognosis and course of peri-implant ailments.6
The prevalence of peri-implantitis is about 12% to 22% the place practically 40% of those sufferers undergo from the peri-implant mucositis. Due to this fact, peri-implant illness is turning into a supply of rising concern amongst oral well being professionals.7 Though quite a few hypotheses on the etiology of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis have been proposed, the main reason behind peri-implant ailments is reported infectious in nature.4 Accordingly, emphasis on the correlation of pathogenic micro organism contributing to the development of the peri-implantitis is necessary. Though the bacterial plaque and peri-implant mucositis are thought-about, a transparent affiliation with the peri-implantitis has not been demonstrated but.6 In a latest consensus assembly,8 it has been described that peri-implant pathology has a multifactorial etiology comprised of implant related elements (supplies, design, and floor properties), clinician elements (prosthodontic expertise, and surgical talent), and affected person associated elements (basic well being, bone high quality drugs, oral hygiene, and smoking).8
Implant prosthesis design performs an necessary position in figuring out the affected person’s danger for growing peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis.9 Prosthetic elements similar to presence of residual cement, ill-fitting prosthetic parts, inadequate crown margins on implant abutments, abutment top, abutment-implant connections, prosthesis contours, entry for oral hygiene, and administration of occlusal forces are potential etiologic elements resulting in peri-implantitis. Earlier literatures10,11 have recognized a correlation between plaque and peri-implantitis nonetheless, negated the importance of prosthetic parameters. To attenuate the chance of growing peri-implant ailments, the danger elements related to implant failures require thorough analysis previous to implant procedures and after implant loading. Due to this fact, the purpose of the current in vivo research was to evaluate the position of prosthetic or restorative elements affecting peri-implant well being. As well as, varied restorative danger elements related to peri-implantitis had been evaluated by observing adjustments in a number of periodontal parameters over a interval of three years following implant placement and useful loading.
Supplies and Strategies
The current research was carried out following the Helsinki Declaration of 1975 (revised 2013) after approval from the Ethics committee, Institutional Evaluate Board, King Saud College, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia (Ref: 87563). The current research recruited sufferers who obtained standard dental implants (Bone stage, size>6 mm, titanium, Straumann, Switzerland) to exchange a number of lacking enamel. All of the remedy procedures had been carried out on the Division of Periodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, King Saud College, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia throughout a interval from yr 2015 to 2018. A random sampling technique was utilized to recruit topics with a number of lacking enamel, restored utilizing single implant-supported crowns with a useful occlusal loading for six months or extra on the time of analysis. The factors set by Konstantinidis et al12 and Schwarz et al13 for affected person choice had been adopted. All of the procedures and analysis targets had been defined to each affected person and knowledgeable consent was obtained for taking part on this research.
Any sufferers with any uncontrolled systemic ailments (similar to osteoporosis, diabetes HbA1c>7,); smoking; breastfeeding or pregnant girls; consumption of medicines which will have an effect on bone metabolism and mucosal therapeutic (similar to anti-resorptive medication, steroids); use of antibiotics inside previous eight weeks; any restorations obstructing the calculation of periodontal pocket depths (PPD), and the absence of baseline radiographic knowledge had been excluded. Out of 2045 screened information, 213 feminine sufferers and 271 male sufferers (age 26–87 years) fulfilling the part standards had been included. Among the many chosen sufferers, a complete of 484 dental implants had been evaluated for figuring out danger indicators by assessing a number of periodontal parameters.
Examine Variables and Scientific Measurements
Within the current research, variables together with affected person’s age, gender, implant restoration/crown sort (porcelain fused to steel [PFM], all ceramic), crown retention sort (cement retained, screw retained), implant-crown standing (good [adequate emergence profile and contours], truthful [inadequate emergence profile and contours], fractured [crown fractured], and over-contoured [bulky gingival and axial contours]) had been assessed towards the periodontal parameters.
For every implant website, the periodontal parameters had been evaluated by inserting a plastic probe (11 Colorvue Probe, Hu-Friedy) into the gingival sulcus with mild stress ≤ 0.25Ncm. A complete of six measurements (three factors at buccal and lingual sides every) had been taken by putting the probe parallel to the crown at midbuccal and midlingual factors and 10 levels tilted inward on the proximal factors. All measurements had been taken on the nearest mm proven on the probe.3 Implant websites exhibiting PPD 6mm or larger, bleeding on probing (BOP), and attachment loss/bone lack of 2.5mm or larger had been scored as having peri-implantitis. BOP was noticed when it comes to absence (-) or presence (+) of bleeding on the probing website following PPD measurement.14 The modified plaque index (PI)15 was used to evaluate the plaque scores (rating 0- No detection of plaque; rating 1- plaque solely acknowledged by working a probe throughout the graceful marginal floor of the implant; rating 2- plaque seen to the bare eye; rating 3- abundance of soppy matter). Gingival consistency and coloration had been assessed by way of direct visible analysis, and decided by the seen space between the gingival marginal stage and the interproximal papillae, as redness is a sign for irritation and pink coloration is a sign of gingival well being.16
To judge the bone loss round implants, normal periapical radiographs had been obtained throughout medical examination and in contrast with the baseline radiographs obtained at prosthesis insertion to substantiate bone ranges round every implant.17 For correct evaluation and standardization, we scanned all radiographs (decision: 1200 dpi), and analyzed utilizing a picture evaluation software program (Picture JV 1.49, Analysis Providers Department, Nationwide Institute of Well being, Bethesda, MD, USA). To calibrate the pixel/mm ratio, the size of implant was used as a set reference level to counteract any potential radiographic distortion.18 To evaluate the bone loss round every implant, the gap between probably the most coronal bone-to-implant interface and the implant shoulder was radiographically calculated parallel to the implant’s lengthy axis distally and mesially. The investigator who was blinded to the entire course of carried out all radiographic calculations to keep away from operator dependent bias.
The implant crown traits had been assessed with visible examination by the blinded examiner and the crown standing was scored as “Good” when the crown was with ample margins, emergence profile and contours; it was scored as “Honest” when there have been insufficient margins, emergence profile and contours. Equally, the fractured crowns had been scored as “Fractured” and the cumbersome contours had been scored as “Overcontoured”.
Information Evaluation
The obtained knowledge was evaluated utilizing SPSS (v.24, IBM Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Examine variables similar to affected person’s age group, gender, crown sort, crown retention sort and crown standing had been analyzed. The quantitative consequence variable PPD, categorical consequence variables together with PI, BOP, gingival coloration, consistency, and radiographic bone loss had been described utilizing the imply, normal deviation, frequencies and percentages. Pupil’s t-test and one-way ANOVA had been utilized to research imply of PPD relative to the specific research variables. The affiliation between the specific research and consequence variables was evaluated utilizing Pearson’s Chi-square take a look at. P-value of <0.05 was used to report the statistical significance of the outcomes.
Outcomes
Out of complete 2045 screened sufferers’ information, a complete 213 (48.1%) feminine and 271 (51.2%) male sufferers aged between 26 to 87 years (imply age=60±8.6 years) had been included following the above-mentioned choice standards. Accordingly, we examined a complete of 484 dental implants together with 251 (56%) positioned in feminine sufferers and 233 (49%) positioned in male sufferers. The medical examination revealed BOP on a couple of website of the peri-implant mucosa in 201 (42%) implants and due to this fact had been counted as affected by peri-implant mucositis. Additional detailed analysis of periapical radiographs revealed marginal bone loss in 115 (23.76%) implants confirming the analysis of peri-implantitis.
Within the current research, the imply PPD worth was considerably decrease in topics whose crown standing was good in comparison with the themes whose crown standing was truthful, fractured or over-contoured (p<0.0001) (Table 1). The distribution of PI (Sure/No) throughout the research variables confirmed statistically important affiliation with crown standing. Nearly all of the sufferers with good crown standing had no plaque accumulation based mostly on the PI scores (52.7%) in comparison with 47.3% with optimistic PI. Sufferers with crown standing truthful had 100% PI optimistic and 86% of sufferers with crown standing over-contoured had optimistic PI which indicated a excessive statistically important affiliation between crown standing and PI (p<0.0001) (Table 2). Moreover, distribution of BOP (Sure/No), throughout the research variables additionally confirmed a statistically important affiliation with crown standing. Solely 35% of the sufferers whose crown standing was good had been having BOP in comparison with 65% who didn’t have any BOP recorded. Equally, 95.1% of topics whose crown standing was fractured and 38% whose crown standing was over-contoured had BOP when put next with 4.9% and 5.4% who didn’t had BOP which signifies excessive statistically important affiliation between crown standing and BOP (p<0.0001) (Table 3).
 |
Desk 1 Comparability of Imply Values of Periodontal Pocket Depth in Relation to the Examine Variables (N=484) |
 |
Desk 2 Affiliation Between Periodontal Index and Different Examine Variables (N=484) |
 |
Desk 3 Affiliation Between Bleeding on Probing and Different Examine Variables (N=484) |
In regard to gingival coloration (pale pink and crimson) and its affiliation with all of the research variables, it confirmed a statistically important affiliation with crown sort (PFM v/s all ceramic), crown standing (good, truthful, fractured and over-contoured) and crown sort (screw v/s cement retained). Nearly all of sufferers with PFM crowns (67.5%) had pale pink gingival coloration when in comparison with 49.2% of sufferers with all ceramic crowns. This distinction between PFM and all ceramic crowns was statistically important (p=0.005). The crown standing was additionally considerably related to gingival coloration, whereas 98.2% of sufferers with good crown standing had pale pink coloration in comparison with sufferers with over-contoured crown standing solely 20.9% had pale pink gingival coloration (p<0.0001) (Table 4). The crown standing that was noticed pretty much as good, 85.5% of the sufferers had “agency” consistency of gingiva, whereas 100%, 100% and 95.3% of the sufferers with crown standing truthful, fractured and over-contoured had consistency as “edematous”, this was extremely important (p<0.0001). In distinction, it was noticed that 74% of sufferers with screw retained crowns had pale pink gingiva in comparison with solely 56.1% of these obtained cement retained crown which was statistically important (p<0.0001) (Table 5).
 |
Desk 4 Affiliation Between Gingival Colour and Different Examine Variables (N=484) |
 |
Desk 5 Affiliation Between Gingival Consistency and Different Examine Variables (N=484) |
Lastly, the radiographic examination revealed that 94% of sufferers with good crown standing had no change of their radiographic findings in comparison with solely 6% who had implant threads uncovered. Whereas 73.8% of sufferers with crown standing truthful, 70% of sufferers with crown standing fractured and 59.7% of sufferers with crown standing over-contoured had completely different stage of implant threads publicity when put next with 26.2%, 30% and 40.3% didn’t have any change of their radiographic findings which signifies a statistically important affiliation between crown standing and alveolar bone resorption in time period of thread publicity (p<0.0001) (Table 6).
 |
Desk 6 Affiliation Between Radiographic Findings and Different Examine Variables (N=484) |
Dialogue
Latest developments within the area of dentistry have made the substitute of lacking enamel by the use of dental implants a standard and profitable remedy modality. Success of dental implant depends upon quite a few systemic and native elements affecting peri-implant tissues therapeutic. There are numerous elements together with affected person’s systemic well being, tissues contours, use and care of prosthesis, implant-abutment interface, operative procedures for implant insertion, and prosthesis design. For instance, implant failures could also be both early failure because of failure to determine osseointegration initially throughout wound therapeutic interval or late failure can happen after occlusal loading because of the breakdown of osseointegration. Contemplating the importance of osseointegration, varied investigators targeted in enhancing the implant floor bioactivity and osseointegration.19–22 Due to this fact, to keep away from such undesirable outcomes, a cautious evaluation of assorted elements that contribute to the implant failure is essential. This current retrospective research was aimed to evaluate the restorative/prosthetic elements that have an effect on the survival of Straumann dental implants in Saudi inhabitants for 3 years. A complete of 484 dental implants had been evaluated for figuring out danger indicators by assessing a number of periodontal parameters similar to PPD, BOP and PI.
Within the research, the imply PPD, BOP and PI had been considerably related to the standing of the definitive prosthesis. It was discovered that PPD was decrease in topics whose crown standing was good (with ample axial and gingival contours) when put next with the themes whose crown standing was truthful (with insufficient axial and gingival contours), fractured and over-contoured crowns. These outcomes are in accordance with Katafuchi el al23 who reported {that a} larger peri-implant bone loss and better prevalence of peri-implantitis in sufferers having implant crown emergence profile larger than 30 levels. Equally, the distribution of PI (Sure/No) throughout the research variables confirmed a statistically important affiliation with crown standing. By way of PI scores, nearly all of the sufferers with good crown standing had no plaque accumulation (52.7%) in comparison with 47.3% with optimistic PI scores. Sufferers with crown standing truthful had 100% PI optimistic scores and 86% of sufferers with crown standing over-contoured had optimistic PI which steered a excessive statistically important affiliation between crown standing and PI (p<0.0001).
When BOP was measured to acknowledge presence of irritation of soppy tissues round dental implants, it was noticed that 42% of websites had optimistic BOP round implants, which is in accordance with beforehand printed research by Gerber et al.24 French et al25 used modified sulcular bleeding index and located that BOP is related to mucositis. In the same research by Buser et al26 utilizing Mombelli’s bleeding index which reported that on mere punctuating, bleeding spots suggests harm to the peri-implant supporting tissues whereas the Mombelli’s class 2 rating signifies mucositis. Additional it was concluded that mucositis doesn’t essentially progress to peri-implantitis over time when ample plaque management measures are undertaken.15 Equally, Van Velzen et al27 used the identical index as Buser et al,26 and located BOP at 20% of the implant websites. Stoker et al28 reported BOP in 14% of the websites examined. The BOP optimistic websites reported on this research had been comparatively larger in comparison with the beforehand printed research14–16,24 and this may very well be because of the distinction within the indices used to document the BOP. Within the present research BOP was assessed as current or absent, whereas different printed research used extra particular bleeding on probing indices.
By way of affiliation of gingival coloration, tender tissue consistency with all of the research variables, a statistically important relation with crown sort (PFM v/s all ceramic), crown standing (good, truthful, fractured and over-contoured) and crown retention (screw v/s cement retained) had been noticed. Nearly all of sufferers with PFM crowns and good crown standing had pale pink coloration and agency consistency of soppy tissues round implants as in comparison with implants with all ceramic crowns and truthful or over contoured crowns. In distinction, nearly all of sufferers with screw retained crowns (74.5%) had pale pink gingiva as in comparison with these obtained cement retained crowns (56.1%). Comparable findings had been reported by Weber et al29 evaluating peri-implant tissue interfaces when it comes to screw and cemented single-tooth implants. It was concluded that cemented implant crowns had elevated PI, sulcus bleeding index, and BOP scores. Equally, in response to Dalago et al,30 websites with cemented restorations had been at 3.6 occasions larger danger for peri-implantitis than websites with screw-retained prostheses. As well as, a research by Wilson31 notes that extra dental cement deposits had been related to indicators of peri‐implant lesions in 81% of instances.
One of many fascinating findings noticed within the research was the impression of keratinized tissue width (KTW) round dental implants, which was highlighted in lots of systematic opinions.32–36 Within the current research, websites with <2mm width of keratinized tissue confirmed considerably extra edematous tender tissues in comparison with these with >2mm KTW. These outcomes are in accordance with Souza et al37 who discovered that implant websites with < 2mm KTW confirmed extra irritation.
Lastly, radiographic adjustments had been assessed as having no change in bone stage and implant threads uncovered. The sufferers with the nice crown standing had no change of their radiographic findings (94%) in comparison with solely 6% who had implant threads uncovered. Majority of sufferers with crown standing truthful, fractured or over contoured had completely different ranges of implant threads’ publicity which signifies a statistically important affiliation between crown standing and alveolar bone resorption. Equally, poor oral hygiene and optimistic PI had been considerably related to radiographic thread publicity. These findings counsel that failure to regulate affected person’s oral hygiene could also be a danger issue contributing to the event of irritation of soppy tissues across the implant, resulting in bone loss and consequently implant failure. Moreover, the current research findings revealed that, the dearth of a minimal of two mm of KTW is related to radiographic implant thread publicity. Additionally, Bengazi et al38 reported the next crestal bone resorption and apical tender tissue positioning of implants positioned in areas with inadequate KTW. Equally, a latest research by Van Ekeren et al39 reported that putting dental implants in an preliminary KTW of 2mm or extra decreased crestal bone change considerably.
Lack of ability to adequately take away microbial biofilm or plaque, by the affected person and/or dental skilled, has been related to the incidence of peri-implant ailments. Thus, correct restoration/prostheses design which provides straightforward plaque management performs an necessary position in stopping these situations. In implant remedy, convex or overcontoured emergence profiles have been discovered a possible danger issue for peri-implantitis. Due to this fact, the design of any implant restoration ought to permit entry that helps optimum oral hygiene round implant websites. Due to this fact, when putting and restoring an implant, varied elements similar to oral hygiene standing, keratinized tissue width, accessible bone, and ultimate prosthesis design have to be thought-about. The current research reported that overlooking these elements could impression negatively on dental implant’s long-term success.
A number of limitations had been noticed in current research, which embody primarily inherent limitations of retrospective research and inconsistent outcomes from utilizing completely different indices and instruments within the methodology. As well as, the dearth of comply with up because of the retrospective design can have an effect on the commentary of a real affiliation between completely different studied variables and outcomes measured. Further limitation could be defined by amassing the current pattern from one institute which can’t be extremely environment friendly to translate the current findings to complete inhabitants of sufferers with implants.
Conclusion
Implant prosthesis design performs an necessary position in figuring out the affected person’s danger for growing peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis. Prosthetic design components similar to abutment top, abutment/implant interface, prosthesis contours, retained extra cement, entry for oral hygiene and administration of occlusal forces are necessary and have to be thought-about whereas restoring implants. With cautious remedy planning, optimum restoration design, and common follow-up visits, we are able to ship a profitable implant consequence by decreasing the danger of growing the peri-implant ailments.
Acknowledgments
The authors lengthen their appreciation to the Deanship of Scientific Analysis at King Saud College for funding this work by way of analysis group no. RG-1441-498.
Disclosure
The authors report no conflicts of curiosity on this work.
References
1. Sakka S, Baroudi Ok, Nassani MZ. Components related to early and late failure of dental implants. J Investig Clin Dent. 2012;3:258–261. doi:10.1111/j.2041-1626.2012.00162.x
2. Setzer F, Kim S. Comparability of long-term survival of implants and endodontically handled enamel. J Dent Res. 2014;93:19–26. doi:10.1177/0022034513504782
3. Moraschini V, Poubel L, Ferreira V, et al. Analysis of survival and success charges of dental implants reported in longitudinal research with a follow-up interval of a minimum of 10 years: a scientific overview. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015;44:377–388. doi:10.1016/j.ijom.2014.10.023
4. Lindhe J, Meyle J; Group D of the European Workshop on Periodontology. Peri‐implant ailments: consensus report of the sixth european workshop on periodontology. J Clin Periodontol. 2008;35:282–285. doi:10.1111/j.1600-051X.2008.01283.x
5. Schrott AR, Jimenez M, Hwang J, et al. 5‐yr analysis of the affect of keratinized mucosa on peri‐implant tender‐tissue well being and stability round implants supporting full‐arch mandibular mounted prostheses. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009;20:1170–1177. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01795.x
6. Pesce P, Canullo L, Grusovin MG, et al. Systematic overview of some prosthetic danger elements for periimplantitis. J Prosthet Dent. 2015;114:346–350. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.04.002
7. Mir‐Mari J, Mir‐Orfila P, Figueiredo R, et al. Prevalence of peri‐implant ailments. A cross‐sectional research based mostly on a non-public observe atmosphere. J Clin Periodontol. 2012;39:490–494. doi:10.1111/j.1600-051X.2012.01872.x
8. Berglundh T, Armitage G, Araujo MG, et al. Peri‐implant ailments and situations: consensus report of workgroup 4 of the 2017 world workshop on the classification of periodontal and Peri‐Implant ailments and situations. J Periodontol. 2018;89:S313–S318. doi:10.1002/JPER.17-0739
9. Hashim D, Cionca N. A complete overview of peri-implantitis danger elements. Curr Oral Well being Rep. 2020;7:1–12. doi:10.1007/s40496-020-00274-2
10. Monje A, Insua A, Wang H. Understanding peri-implantitis as a plaque-associated and site-specific entity: on the native predisposing elements. J Clin Med. 2019;8:279. doi:10.3390/jcm8020279
11. Dawood A, Marti BM, Tanner S. Peri-implantitis and the prosthodontist. Br Dent J. 2017;223:325–332. doi:10.1038/sj.bdj.2017.755
12. Konstantinidis IK, Kotsakis GA, Gerdes S, et al. Cross-sectional research on the prevalence and danger indicators of peri-implant ailments. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2015;8:75–88.
13. Schwarz F, Derks J, Monje A, et al. Peri‐implantitis. J Clin Periodontol. 2018;45:S246–S266. doi:10.1111/jcpe.12954
14. Lang NP, Adler R, Joss A, et al. Absence of bleeding on probing an indicator of periodontal stability. J Clin Periodontol. 1990;17:714–721. doi:10.1111/j.1600-051X.1990.tb01059.x
15. Mombelli A, Van Oosten M, Schürch E
16. Smith R, Lath D, Rawlinson A, et al. Gingival irritation evaluation by picture evaluation: measurement and validation. Int J Dent Hyg. 2008;6:137–142. doi:10.1111/j.1601-5037.2008.00294.x
17. Beagle JR. Growing keratinized mucosa round nonsubmerged dental implants. half I: the usage of vascularized flaps. Periodontal Pract As we speak. 2005;2:13–22.
18. Albrektsson T, Isidor F. Consensus report: implant remedy. In: Lang NP, Karring T, editors.; 1994:365–369.
19. Zafar MS, Fareed MA, Riaz S, et al. Personalized therapeutic floor coatings for dental implants. Coatings. 2020;10:1–36. doi:10.3390/coatings10060568
20. Najeeb S, Siddiqui F, Khurshid Z, et al. Impact of bisphosphonates on root resorption after tooth replantation–a scientific overview. Dent Traumatol. 2017;33:77–83. doi:10.1111/edt.12316
21. Zafar MS, Farooq I, Awais M, Najeeb S, Khurshid Z, Zohaib S. Chapter 11 – bioactive floor coatings for enhancing osseointegration of dental implants; 2019:313–329.
22. Najeeb S, Khurshid Z, Zohaib S, et al. Bioactivity and osseointegration of PEEK are inferior to these of titanium-A scientific overview. J Oral Implantol. 2016;42:512–516. doi:10.1563/aaid-joi-D-16-00072
23. Katafuchi M, Weinstein BF, Leroux BG, et al. Restoration contour is a danger indicator for peri‐implantitis: a cross‐sectional radiographic evaluation. J Clin Periodontol. 2018;45:225–232. doi:10.1111/jcpe.12829
24. Gerber J, Tan W, Balmer T, et al. Bleeding on probing and pocket probing depth in relation to probing stress and mucosal well being round oral implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009;20:75–78. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01601.x
25. French D, Nadji N, Larjava H. Survival and success charges of brief straumann implants positioned within the mandible: a retrospective research with as much as 5 yr follow-up. Glob J Oral Sci. 2015;1:1–8. doi:10.30576/2414-2050.2015.01.1
26. Buser D, Janner SF, Wittneben J, et al. 10‐yr survival and success charges of 511 titanium implants with a sandblasted and acid‐etched floor: a retrospective research in 303 partially edentulous sufferers. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2012;14:839–851. doi:10.1111/j.1708-8208.2012.00456.x
27. Van Velzen FJ, Ofec R, Schulten EA, et al. 10‐yr survival fee and the incidence of peri‐implant illness of 374 titanium dental implants with a SLA floor: a potential cohort research in 177 totally and partially edentulous sufferers. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015;26:1121–1128. doi:10.1111/clr.12499
28. Stoker G, van Waas R, Wismeijer D. Lengthy‐time period outcomes of three varieties of implant‐supported mandibular overdentures in people who smoke. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012;23:925–929. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02237.x
29. Weber HP, Kim DM, Ng MW, et al. Peri‐implant tender‐tissue well being surrounding cement‐and screw‐retained implant restorations: a multi‐middle, 3‐yr potential research. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2006;17:375–379. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2005.01232.x
30. Dalago HR, Schuldt Filho G, Rodrigues MAP, et al. Danger indicators for peri‐implantitis. A cross‐sectional research with 916 implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017;28:144–150. doi:10.1111/clr.12772
31. Wilson TG
32. Lin G, Chan H, Wang H. The importance of keratinized mucosa on implant well being: a scientific overview. J Periodontol. 2013;84:1755–1767. doi:10.1902/jop.2013.120688
33. Meffert RM, Langer B, Fritz ME. Dental implants: a overview. J Periodontol. 1992;63:859–870. doi:10.1902/jop.1992.63.11.859
34. Gobbato L, Avila-Ortiz G, Sohrabi Ok, et al. The impact of keratinized mucosa width on peri-implant well being: a scientific overview. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2013;28:1536–1545. doi:10.11607/jomi.3244
35. Brito C, Tenenbaum HC, Wong BK, et al. Is keratinized mucosa indispensable to take care of peri‐implant well being? A scientific overview of the literature. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2014;102:643–650. doi:10.1002/jbm.b.33042
36. Wennström JL, Derks J. Is there a necessity for keratinized mucosa round implants to take care of well being and tissue stability? Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012;23:136–146. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02540.x
37. Souza AB, Tormena M, Matarazzo F, et al. The affect of peri‐implant keratinized mucosa on brushing discomfort and peri‐implant tissue well being. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016;27:650–655. doi:10.1111/clr.12703
38. Bengazi F, Botticelli D, Favero V, et al. Affect of presence or absence of keratinized mucosa on the alveolar bony crest stage because it pertains to completely different buccal marginal bone thicknesses. an experimental research in canine. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014;25:1065–1071. doi:10.1111/clr.12233
39. van Eekeren P, van Elsas P, Tahmaseb A, et al. The affect of preliminary mucosal thickness on crestal bone change in comparable macrogeometrical implants: a potential randomized medical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017;28:214–218. doi:10.1111/clr.12784
