Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 31, 2025
Oral Biofilm Formation on Different Materials for Dental Implants
Published on: June 24, 2018
[Influence of emergence profile designs on the peri-implant tissue in the mandibular molar: A randomized controlled
Juan Wang1, Lixin Qiu1, Huajie Yu1
1Fourth Clinical Division, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology & National Center of Stomatology & National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases & National Engineering Research Center of Oral Biomaterials and Digital Medical Devices & Beijing Key Laboratory of Digital Stomatology, Beijing 100081, China.
Objective:
To compare the influence of different emergence profile of implants in mandibular molar on the peri-implant soft tissue.
Methods:
Forty-four implants were divided into two equal groups by mucosal thickness, ≥2 mm (group A) or < 2 mm (group B), and were randomly included in the test group and the control group. In the control group, the patients were treated by a prosthesis with no transmucosal modifications (subgroups A1 and B1). In groups A1 and B1, the prostheses maintained the original emergence profile of the healing abutment. In the test group, the prostheses were designed based on a width-to-height ratio (W/H) of 1.3 ∶ 1 (subgroups A2 and B2). In group A2, the buccal transmucosal configuration design was slightly concave, and in group B2, the prostheses were designed with convex buccal transmucosal configuration. Assessments were made before delivery of the definitive restoration (T0), one month (T1) and 12 months (T2) after loading. The soft tissue and prosthesis information were obtained by intraoral scan and were converted to digital models. The digital models of different time were superimposed together. Buccal mucosal W/H, emergence angle (EA) and buccal mucosal margin recession (ΔGM) were measured.
Results:
One year after loading, the buccal mucosal margin recession in the test group (groups A2 and B2) was significantly lower than that in the control group (groups A1 and B1). The ΔGM in group A2 was significantly lower than that in group A1 (P=0.033), but in groups B1 and B2, it was not significantly different. The W/H in group A2 increased significantly one month after loading, but remained stable at one year. In the A1 group, the W/H changed little from initial to one month, but increased significantly at one year after loading. The W/H in group B2 remained stable from the beginning to one year, while in group B1, it changed little one month after loading, but increased significantly by one year.
Conclusion:
When the initial mucosal thickness was ≥2 mm, the slightly concave prosthesis designed based on the biological W/H significantly maintained the level of buccal mucosa. When the mucosal thickness was < 2 mm, the slightly convex prosthesis design maintained a more stable W/H over one year.
