Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
, 85 (1), 92-102

Effects of Currently Available Surgical and Restorative Interventions on Reducing Midfacial Mucosal Recession of Immediately Placed Single-Tooth Implants: A Systematic Review

Affiliations
Review

Effects of Currently Available Surgical and Restorative Interventions on Reducing Midfacial Mucosal Recession of Immediately Placed Single-Tooth Implants: A Systematic Review

Guo-Hao Lin et al. J Periodontol.

Abstract

Background: Procedures to improve peri-implant soft-tissue outcomes of single, immediately placed implants are a topic of interest. This systematic review investigates the effect of various surgical and restorative interventions on implant mid-buccal mucosal level.

Methods: An electronic search of five databases (January 1990 to December 2012) and a manual search of peer-reviewed journals for relevant articles were performed. Randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs), prospective cohort studies, and case series with at least nine participants were included, with data on midfacial mucosal recession (MR) of immediately placed implants following various surgical and restorative interventions with a follow-up period of at least 6 months.

Results: Thirty-six studies, eight RCTs, one cohort study, and 27 case series were eligible. Six interventions were identified and reviewed: 1) palatal/lingual implant position; 2) platform-switched abutments; 3) flapless approach; 4) bone grafts to fill the gap between buccal plate and fixture; 5) connective tissue grafts; and 6) immediate provisionalization. Three studies consistently showed that palatally/lingually positioned implants had significantly less MR when using tissue-level implants. Mixed results were reported for interventions 2, 3, 5, and 6. One study was available for intervention 4 and did not show a benefit.

Conclusions: Some interventions might be adopted to reduce the amount of MR on implants with the immediate placement approach, as suggested by the included studies, with various levels of evidence. The conflicting results among studies might be a result of differences in patient and site characteristics, e.g., tissue biotype and buccal plate thickness. Therefore, the use of these interventions might be reserved for patients with moderate to high risk of esthetic complications.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 3 PubMed Central articles

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources

Feedback