Abstract
Objective The aim of this study was to determine the average and maximum height of the papilla around maxillary anterior implants in respect of neighboring structures and location of implants. Materials and Methods 92 dental implants from 63 patients were investigated in this study. Those implants were placed in the anterior maxillary region and had been loaded for a minimum of one year. After receiving written consent, clinical data including the height of interproximal papillae adjacent to the tooth/implant/pontic were obtained through clinical observation. The independent t-test or ANOVA, the regression modeling, and generalized estimating equation (GEE) models were used for statistical analysis (p < 0.05). Results Papilla height was calculated as 2.8 mm (1–5.5 mm) for implant-tooth sites, 2.6 mm (1–4 mm) in implants beside pontics, and 2.5 mm (1–3.5 mm) for implants adjacent to implants. Despite the lack of a significant difference in the mean papilla height in the studied groups, the maximum values of papilla heights were significantly different. Conclusions In this study, no significant differences were found in papilla height mean values in relation to neighboring structures or location of implants in the anterior maxilla. However, the maximum values of papilla heights were observed around implants next to natural teeth.
Highlights
Up to one-quarter of adults in Western countries have lost at least one anterior tooth despite a decline in the prevalence of tooth loss [1]
Loss of papillary height and consequent open embrasures endanger desirable esthetic needed in the anterior region and may create obstacles to maintain supporting tissues’ health. erefore, a better understanding of associated factors is necessary in order to prevent this problem [6]. e relative tooth position and shape [7], the International Journal of Dentistry morphology of the interproximal space [8], the distance between the contact point and the alveolar crest [9, 10], the amount of keratinized tissue [10], gingival thickness and biotype [10], the implant position [10], the osseous crest location [7] and thickness, especially the thickness of the labial plate [11], and different surgery procedures [10, 12] are important key points which clinicians need to consider in order not to have implant soft-tissue complications [10]
Implant materials can be influential as papillae filling the entire interproximal space and their esthetic scores were more and better beside zirconia implants than titanium ones [13, 14]
Summary
Up to one-quarter of adults in Western countries have lost at least one anterior tooth despite a decline in the prevalence of tooth loss [1]. E aim of this retrospective clinical study was to determine the mean and maximum values of peri-implant papilla height in the anterior maxillary region and to investigate whether there could be an association between height of periimplant papillae with different adjacent structures to which the implant was in contact with (the implant-implant, implanttooth, or implant-pontic) and/or implantation location (the central or lateral incisors, canine, or first premolar). En, for each participant, a questionnaire including background information (age, sex, smoking status, systemic diseases, and medication), implant system, surgical method, location of implantation (the central or lateral incisors, canine, or first premolar), whether the inserted implant was adjacent to the tooth/implant/pontic, the materials and methods used for replacing missing teeth, and suprastructure data (abutment and prosthesis type, bone level, or tissue level) were acquired. GEE analysis was performed by the same method as Chang and Wennstrom used in their study [18]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
