Purpose: Marginal bone loss (MBL) is an important clinical issue in implant therapy. One feature that has been cited as a contributing factor to this bone loss is peri-implant mucosal thickness. Therefore, in this report, we conducted a systematic review of the literature comparing bone remodeling around implants placed in areas with thick (≥2-mm) vs. thin (<2-mm) mucosa. Methods: A PICO question was defined. Manual and electronic searches were performed of the MEDLINE/PubMed and Cochrane Oral Health Group databases. The inclusion criteria were prospective studies that documented soft tissue thickness with direct intraoperative measurements and that included at least 1 year of follow-up. When possible, a meta-analysis was performed for both the overall and subgroup analyses. Results: Thirteen papers fulfilled the inclusion criteria. A meta-analysis of 7 randomized clinical trials was conducted. Significantly less bone loss was found around implants with thick mucosa than around those with thin mucosa (difference, −0.53 mm; P<0.0001).Subgroups were analyzed regarding the apico-coronal positioning, the use of platformmatched vs. platform-switched (PS) connections, and the use of cement-retained vs.screw-retained prostheses. In these analyses, thick mucosa was found to be associated with significantly less MBL than thin mucosa (P<0.0001). Among non-matching (PS) connections and screw-retained prostheses, bone levels were not affected by mucosal thickness. Conclusions Soft tissue thickness was found to be correlated with MBL except in cases of PS connections used on implants with thin tissues and screw-retained prostheses.Mucosal thickness did not affect implant survival or the occurrence of biological or aesthetic complications.Trial Registration: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO):CRD42018084598

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether the placement of absorbable collagen membrane increase the stability of alveolar ridge contour after guided bone regeneration (GBR) using buccal punch flap. METHODS: From June 2019 to June 2023, patients who underwent GBR using buccal punch flap simultaneously with a single implant placement in posterior region (from first premolar to second molar) were divided into coverage group, in which particular bone graft was covered by collagen membrane and non-coverage group. Cone beam CT (CBCT) was taken before surgery (T0), immediately after surgery (T1), and 3-7 months after surgery (T2), and the thickness of the buccal bone plate at different levels (0, 2, 4, and 6 mm) below the smooth-rough interface of the implant (BBT-0, -2, -4, -6) was mea-sured after superimposition of CBCT models using Mimics software. RESULTS: A total of 29 patients, including 15 patients in coverage group and 14 patients in non-coverage group, were investigated in this study. At T0, T1, and T2, there was no significant difference in BBT between the two groups (P>0.05). At T1, BBT-0 was (2.50±0.90) mm in the coverage group and (2.97±1.28) mm in the non-coverage group, with corresponding BBT-2 of (3.65±1.08) mm and (3.58±1.26) mm, respectively. At T2, BBT-0 was (1.22±0.55) mm in the coverage group and (1.70±0.97) mm in the non-coverage group, with corresponding BBT-2 of (2.32±0.94) mm and (2.57±1.26) mm, respectively. From T1 to T2, there were no statistically significant differences in the absolute values [(0.47±0.54)-(1.33±0.75) mm] and percentages [(10.04%±24.81%)-(48.43%±18.32%)] of BBT change between the two groups. The thickness of new bone formation in the buccal bone plate from T0 to T2 ranged from (1.27±1.09) mm to (2.75±2.15) mm with no statistical difference between the two groups at all levels. CONCLUSION In the short term, the GBR using buccal punch flap with or without collagen membrane coverage can effectively repair the buccal implant bone defect. But collagen membrane coverage showed no additional benefit on alveolar ridge contour stability compared with non-membrane coverage.
Humans ; Cohort Studies ; Retrospective Studies ; Alveolar Ridge Augmentation ; Collagen ; Cone-Beam Computed Tomography ; Bone Regeneration ; Dental Implantation, Endosseous