Dental and Medical Problems

Dent Med Probl
Index Copernicus (ICV 2020) – 128.41
MEiN – 70 pts
CiteScore (2021) – 2.0
JCI – 0.5
Average rejection rate (2021) – 81.35%
ISSN 1644-387X (print)
ISSN 2300-9020 (online)
Periodicity – quarterly

Download original text (EN)

Dental and Medical Problems

2019, vol. 56, nr 4, October-December, p. 331–336

doi: 10.17219/dmp/110714

Publication type: original article

Language: English

Download citation:

  • BIBTEX (JabRef, Mendeley)
  • RIS (Papers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero)

Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 3.0 Open Access

Effect of dental implantation on the hard and soft tissues around the adjacent natural teeth

Wpływ implantacji na twarde i miękkie tkanki otaczające sąsiednie zęby

Seyed Reza Arabi1,A,B,C,D,E, Arash Shishehian2,B,E, Sara Khazaei2,D,E, Banafsheh Poormoradi3,E, Samaneh Abbasi2,D,E, Hanif Allahbakhshi4,A,C, Farnoush Fotovat2,4,A,B,C,D,E,F, Javad Faradmal5,C

1 Private Dental Practice, Hamadan, Iran

2 Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Iran

3 Department of Periodontology, School of Dentistry, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Iran

4 Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Kashan University of Medical Sciences, Iran

5 Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Iran


Background. Dental implantation has become widespread for esthetic and functional rehabilitation following single tooth loss as a preferred alternative to conventional tooth-supported restorations. The main advantage of dental implant placement is that it does not require the preparation of the adjacent sound teeth.
Objectives. The aim of this cohort study was to assess the effect of dental implantation on the hard and soft tissues around the adjacent natural teeth.
Material and Methods. In this historical cohort, 34 ‘connect-type’ TBR® implants (bone level), 4 mm in diameter, were submerged in the intact bone of 22 patients (7 males and 15 females). The intraoral and extraoral clinical examination as well as periapical radiography were carried out preoperatively or right after surgery (baseline), at 3 months postoperatively (the time of prosthetic delivery), and at 3 and 6 months after prosthetic delivery. The data was analyzed using the Friedman test (due to the non-normal distribution of the data). In case of presence of a significant difference, pairwise comparisons were performed using the post-hoc Wilcoxon test with the Bonferroni correction. All statistical analyses were performed with a 95% confidence interval (CI) using the SPSS for Windows, v. 16.0 software. The p‑value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results. The distance from the cementoenamel junction (CEJ) of the adjacent teeth to the bone crest significantly increased at different postoperative time points compared to baseline (p < 0.001). The changes in the papillae of the adjacent teeth were also significant at different postoperative time points (p = 0.04). The pocket depth of the adjacent teeth increased, although the value at 3 months postoperatively was not significantly different from the baseline value (p = 0.842). The distance from the implant shoulder to the bone crest of the adjacent teeth significantly increased at different postoperative time points compared to baseline (p < 0.001).
Conclusion. Our results indicate that implant surgery significantly affects the soft and hard tissues around the adjacent natural teeth.

Key words

dental implants, alveolar bone loss, dental papilla

Słowa kluczowe

implanty dentystyczne, zanik kości wyrostka zębodołowego, brodawka zębowa

References (27)

  1. Guillaume B. Dental implants: A review. Morphologie. 2016;100(331):189–198.
  2. Jablonowski L, Matthes R, Duske K, Kocher T. Perspectives in dental implantology. In: Metelmann HR, von Woedtke T, Weltmann KD, eds. Comprehensive Clinical Plasma Medicine: Cold Physical Plasma for Medical Application. Cham, Switzerland: Springer; 2018:319–330.
  3. Chang M, Wennström JL, Odman P, Andersson B. Implant supported single‐tooth replacements compared to contralateral natural teeth. Crown and soft tissue dimensions. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1999;10(3):185–194.
  4. Schnutenhaus S, Martin T, Dreyhaupt J, Rudolph H, Luthardt RG. Dimensional changes of the soft tissue after alveolar ridge preservation with a collagen material. A clinical randomized trial. Open Dent J. 2018;12:389–399.
  5. Rokn A, Bassir SH, Rasouli Ghahroudi AA, Kharazifard MJ, Manesheof R. Long-term stability of soft tissue esthetic outcomes following conventional single implant treatment in the anterior maxilla: 10–12-year results. Open Dent J. 2016;10:602–609.
  6. Sorni-Bröker M, Peñarrocha-Diago M, Peñarrocha-Diago M. Factors that influence the position of the peri-implant soft tissues: A review. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2009;14(9):e475–e479.
  7. Nisapakultorn K, Suphanantachat S, Silkosessak O, Rattanamongkolgul S. Factors affecting soft tissue level around anterior maxillary single‐tooth implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010;21(6):662–670.
  8. Chang M, Wennström JL. Peri‐implant soft tissue and bone crest alterations at fixed dental prostheses: A 3‐year prospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010;21(5):527–534.
  9. Jemt T. Regeneration of gingival papillae after single-implant treatment. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 1997;17(4):326–333.
  10. Suárez‐López Del Amo F, Lin GH, Monje A, Galindo‐Moreno P, Wang HL. Influence of soft tissue thickness on peri‐implant marginal bone loss: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. J Periodontol. 2016;87(6):690–699.
  11. Newman MG, Takei H, Klokkevold PR, Carranza FA. Carranza’s Clinical Periodontology. 11th ed. New York, NY: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2011:735.
  12. Schropp L, Isidor F, Kostopoulos L, Wenzel A. Interproximal papilla levels following early versus delayed placement of single-tooth implants: A controlled clinical trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2005;20(5):753–761.
  13. Reikie DF. Esthetic and functional considerations for implant restoration of the partially edentulous patient. J Prosthet Dent. 1993;70(5):433–437.
  14. Adell R, Lekholm U, Rockler B, et al. Marginal tissue reactions at osseointegrated titanium fixtures: (I). A 3-year longitudinal prospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1986;15(1):39–52.
  15. Apse P, Zarb GA, Schmitt A, Lewis DW. The longitudinal effectiveness of osseointegrated dental implants. The Toronto Study: Peri-implant mucosal response. Int J Peridontics Restorative Dent. 1991;11(2):94–111.
  16. Bengazi F, Wennström JL, Lekholm U. Recession of the soft tissue margin at oral implants. A 2‐year longitudinal prospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1996;7(4):303–310.
  17. Jemt T, Ahlberg G, Henriksson K, Bondevik O. Changes of anterior clinical crown height in patients provided with single-implant restorations after more than 15 years of follow-up. Int J Prosthodont. 2006;19(5):455–461.
  18. Block MS, Mercante DE, Lirette D, Mohamed W, Ryser M, Castellon P. Prospective evaluation of immediate and delayed provisional single tooth restorations. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009;67(11 Suppl):89–107.
  19. Meijndert L, Raghoebar GM, Meijer HJ, Vissink A. Clinical and radiographic characteristics of single‐tooth replacements preceded by local ridge augmentation: A prospective randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008;19(12):1295–1303.
  20. Brägger U, Häfeli U, Huber B, Hämmerle CH, Lang NP. Evaluation of postsurgical crestal bone levels adjacent to non‐submerged dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1998;9(4):218–224.
  21. Palmer RM, Farkondeh N, Palmer PJ, Wilson RF. Astra Tech single‐tooth implants: An audit of patient satisfaction and soft tissue form. J Clin Periodontol. 2007;34(7):633–638.
  22. Cosyn J, De Rouck T. Aesthetic outcome of single‐tooth implant restorations following early implant placement and guided bone regeneration: Crown and soft tissue dimensions compared with contralateral teeth. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009;20(10):1063–1069.
  23. Lee DW, Huh JK, Park KH, Chai JK, Kim CK, Moon IS. Comparison of interproximal soft tissue height for single implants and contra‐lateral natural teeth. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009;20(12):1320–1325.
  24. Kourkouta S, Dedi KD, Paquette DW, Mol A. Interproximal tissue dimensions in relation to adjacent implants in the anterior maxilla: Clinical observations and patient aesthetic evaluation. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009;20(12):1375–1385.
  25. Avivi-Arber L, Zarb GA. Clinical effectiveness of implant-supported single-tooth replacement: The Toronto Study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1996;11(3):311–321.
  26. Grunder U. Stability of the mucosal topography around single-tooth implants and adjacent teeth: 1-year results. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2000;20(1):10–17.
  27. Pradeep A, Karthikeyan B. Peri‐implant papilla reconstruction: Realities and limitations. J Periodontol. 2006;77(3):534–544.