4.5 Article

Dimensions of the healthy gingiva and peri-implant mucosa

Journal

CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH
Volume 26, Issue 6, Pages 657-662

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/clr.12359

Keywords

implants; probing depth; teeth; transmucosal sounding

Ask authors/readers for more resources

ObjectiveTo determine the dimensions of the soft tissue cuff present at various aspects of teeth and to compare these dimensions to those of the mucosa surrounding single implants. Material and methodsFifty volunteers were recruited that were 25years of age and exhibited no signs of (i) untreated caries; (ii) loss of periodontal tissue support in the incisor, canine, and premolar regions; (iii) systemic or local disease. Furthermore, among the 50 patients recruited (iV), 27 had one single implant in the maxilla with teeth present mesial and/or distal to the implant. Probing pocket depth (PPD) and transmucosal sounding depth (TS) were assessed by five experienced, carefully calibrated examiners and with the use of a periodontal probe at the proximal (mesial, distal) and flat (facial, buccal and palatal/lingual) surfaces of all teeth/implants. The width of the keratinized mucosa (KM) was also determined. ResultsIt was demonstrated that (i) PPD and TS were greater at proximal than at flat surfaces at both tooth and implant sites. In addition, both PPD and TS were deeper at implant than at tooth sites. The TS values documented that the cuff of healthy soft tissue that surrounded a tooth varied between 2mm at flat surfaces and 4mm at proximal surfaces, while at implant sites, the mucosa at proximal as well as flat surfaces was 1-1.5mm greater. ConclusionThe probing pocket depth (PPD) and the transmucosal sounding depth (TS) values were greater at proximal than at flat, that is, facial/palatal (lingual) surfaces at tooth sites and frequently also at implant sites. Furthermore, the PPD and the TS dimensions were greater at implant than at adjacent tooth sites.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available