Implant supported single-tooth replacements compared to contralateral natural teeth. Crown and soft tissue dimensions

• Published in: Clinical oral implants research Vol. 10; no. 3; pp. 185 - 194
• Main Authors: Chang, Moontaek, Wennström, Jan L., Ödman, Per, Andersson, Bernt
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Copenhagen Munksgaard International Publishers 01.06.1999
• Subjects: Adolescent; Adult; clinical; Crowns; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants, Single-Tooth; Dentistry; esthetics; Esthetics, Dental; Female; Gingiva - anatomy & histology; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Mouth Mucosa - anatomy & histology; mucosa; Odontometry; Oral Hygiene Index; Patient Satisfaction; Periodontal Index; Photography; probing depth; single implants; Statistics, Nonparametric; Tooth Crown
• ISSN: 0905-7161; 1600-0501
• DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.1999.100301.x

The aim of this study was to make a comparative evaluation of crown and soft tissue dimensions between implant‐supported single‐tooth replacements and the contralateral natural tooth. Twenty patients, who had been treated with an implant‐supported single‐tooth replacement in the esthetic zone of the maxillary jaw and had i) a non‐restored contralateral natural tooth and ii( completed the implant‐supported crown restoration at least 6 months prior to the scheduled follow‐up examination, were included in the study. At the re‐examination various variables describing crown form, soft tissue dimensions and soft tissue conditions were assessed. In addition, the patient’s overall satisfaction with the esthetic out‐come of the implant‐supported single crown was scored using a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). In 12 of the subjects clinical photographs were available from the time of crown insertion for evaluation of longitudinal alterations of the papilla height. The results revealed that, in comparison to the contralateral natural crown, the implant supported crown i) was longer, ii) had a smaller facio‐lingual width, iii) was bordered by a thicker facial mucosa, iv) had a lower height of the distal papilla, v) showed a higher frequency of mucositis and bleeding on probing and vi) showed greater probing depths. The longitudinal evaluation of the papillae adjacent to the implant crown showed an improved proximal soft tissue fill at the follow‐up examination. The VAS scoring of the patients' satisfaction with the appearance of their single implant‐supported restorations revealed a median value of 96% with a range from 70 to 100%. Hence, observed differences in clinical crown height and soft tissue topography between implant‐supported single‐tooth replacements and the contralateral natural tooth may in most patients be of minor importance for the appreciation of the esthetic outcome of implant therapy.