Clinical analysis of the soft tissue integration of non-submerged (ITI) and submerged (3i) implants: a prospective-controlled cohort study

• Published in: Clinical oral implants research Vol. 19; no. 10; pp. 991 - 996
• Main Authors: Garcia, Ricardo Vieira, Kraehenmann, Michael Alexander, Bezerra, Fábio José Barbosa, Mendes, Carlos Maurício Cardeal, Rapp, Gisela Estela
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Oxford, UK Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01.10.2008
• Subjects: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Cohort Studies; Dental Devices, Home Care; Dental Implantation, Endosseous - methods; Dental Implants; Dental Plaque Index; Dental Prosthesis Design; Dental Prosthesis Retention; Dentistry; Educational Status; Female; Functional Laterality; Gingiva - pathology; Humans; Keratins; Male; Middle Aged; non-submerged implants; peri-implant mucosa; Periodontal Index; periodontal parameters; Periodontal Pocket - classification; Periodontium - physiopathology; Prospective Studies; Smoking; submerged implants; Toothbrushing; Young Adult
• DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01345.x
• ISSN: 0905-7161

Aim: The aim of this study was to compare the soft tissue integration of submerged and non‐submerged implants by means of periodontal parameter assessments and analysis. Material and methods: Thirty‐one patients, who received 42 non‐submerged implants (ITI) and 48 submerged implants (3i), participated in the study. There was no significant difference (P>0.05) between both groups considering gender; educational level; handedness; toothbrushing frequency; the number of auxiliary devices used; and smoking habits. The parameters assessed were gingival index (GI), plaque index (PII), retention index (RI), pocket probing depth (PPD) and keratinized mucosa index. Results: At evaluation, 66.67% of all sites showed a GI of 0; 72.22% a PI of 0, and 93.33% the absence of calculus. The average PPD was 2.56 mm in the non‐submerged and 2.70 mm in the submerged group. With regard to the width of keratinized mucosa, 100% of the ITI implants showed a band of keratinized gingiva around the implant, whereas 14.58% in the 3i group showed a complete absence of keratinized mucosa. The intra‐examiner reproducibility was 90.96% for all parameters and the Kendall tau‐b analysis showed a powerless correlation between the chosen parameters for both studied groups. Conclusions: The study material showed no major differences between submerged and non‐submerged dental implants regarding GI, PII, RI and PPD, except the width of keratinized mucosa. Regarding the presence of keratinized mucosa, there is a need for further longitudinal studies to elucidate a possible benefit of one implant system over the other.