Background: The aim of the present retrospective study was to assess peri-implant soft tissue health for implants restored with different prosthetic emergence profile angles. Methods: Patients were treated with implants supporting fixed dentures and were followed for 3 years. Buccal emergence angle (EA) measured at 3 years of follow-up visits (t1) were calculated for two different groups: Group 1 (153 implants) for restorations with angle between implant axis and prosthetic emergence angle from >= 30 degrees, and Group 2 (67 implants) for those with angle <= 30 degrees, respectively. Image J software was used for the measurements. Moreover, peri-implant soft tissue parameters such as pocket probing depth (PPD), plaque index (PI) and gingival index (GI) were assessed, respectively. Results: A total of 57 patients were included in the analysis and a total of 220 implants were examined. Mean (+/- SD) EA in Groups 1 and 2 was 46.4 +/- 12.2 and 24.5 +/- 4.7 degrees, respectively. After 3 years of follow-up, a PPD difference of 0.062 mm (CI95% -0.041 mm; 0.164 mm) was calculated between the two groups and was not statistically significant (p = 0.238). Similar results were found for PI (OR = 0.78, CI95% 0.31; 1.98, p = 0.599). Furthermore, GI scores of 2 and 3 were found for nine implants (5.9%) in Group 1, and for five implants in Group 2 (7.5%). A non-significant difference (p = 0.76) was found. Conclusions: Peri-implant soft-tissue health does not seem to be influenced by EA itself, when a proper emergence profile is provided for implant-supported reconstructions in anterior areas.
Association between Peri-Implant Soft Tissue Health and Different Prosthetic Emergence Angles in Esthetic Areas: Digital Evaluation after 3 Years' Function
Calza, Stefano;Viviani, Lorenzo;Salgarello, Stefano;Buffoli, Barbara;Mensi, Magda
2022-01-01
Abstract
Background: The aim of the present retrospective study was to assess peri-implant soft tissue health for implants restored with different prosthetic emergence profile angles. Methods: Patients were treated with implants supporting fixed dentures and were followed for 3 years. Buccal emergence angle (EA) measured at 3 years of follow-up visits (t1) were calculated for two different groups: Group 1 (153 implants) for restorations with angle between implant axis and prosthetic emergence angle from >= 30 degrees, and Group 2 (67 implants) for those with angle <= 30 degrees, respectively. Image J software was used for the measurements. Moreover, peri-implant soft tissue parameters such as pocket probing depth (PPD), plaque index (PI) and gingival index (GI) were assessed, respectively. Results: A total of 57 patients were included in the analysis and a total of 220 implants were examined. Mean (+/- SD) EA in Groups 1 and 2 was 46.4 +/- 12.2 and 24.5 +/- 4.7 degrees, respectively. After 3 years of follow-up, a PPD difference of 0.062 mm (CI95% -0.041 mm; 0.164 mm) was calculated between the two groups and was not statistically significant (p = 0.238). Similar results were found for PI (OR = 0.78, CI95% 0.31; 1.98, p = 0.599). Furthermore, GI scores of 2 and 3 were found for nine implants (5.9%) in Group 1, and for five implants in Group 2 (7.5%). A non-significant difference (p = 0.76) was found. Conclusions: Peri-implant soft-tissue health does not seem to be influenced by EA itself, when a proper emergence profile is provided for implant-supported reconstructions in anterior areas.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
