Advantages of Tissue Level Implants in Case of Alveolar Ridge and Mucosal Atrophy

Marika Kublashvili; Tamar Dolidze

doi:10.19044/esj.2024.v20n37p102

Marika Kublashvili Grigol Robakidze University, School of Medicine, Georgia
Tamar Dolidze Grigol Robakidze University, School of Medicine, Georgia

DOI: https://doi.org/10.19044/esj.2024.v20n37p102

Keywords: Tissue level, bone level, epithelium, milled surface, osteointegration, crestal bone

Abstract

In the modern market, there is a great variety of dental implants, which differ from each other in design, geometry, connection type, surface treatment technology, etc. However, the most fundamental and main differentiating component between implants is how the implants are inserted into the bone and how it is positioned concerning the soft tissues. Accordingly, they are divided into sunken, i.e., bone level implants and non-sunken, i.e., tissue level implants, in which case the implant-abutment connection, or interface, is located at the gum level. This study shows advantages of tissue level - implants in atrophy of the alveolar ridge, also studies comparison of bone loss in case of bone - level implants and tissue level implants.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

PlumX Statistics

References

1. Biologic width around titanium implants. A physiologically formed and stable dimension over time.” Hermann JS, Busar RK, Higginbottom FL, Cochran DL; Clin Oral Imp Res 2000
2. “Implant-tissue interfaces following treatment of peri-implantitis using guided tissue regeneration. A light and microscopic study” Schupbach P, Hurzeler W, & Grunder U, (1994). Clinical oral implants research
3. Influence of thin mucosal tissues on crestal bone stability around implants with platform switching; A 1-year pilot study” Tomas Linkevicius, peteris Apse, Simonas Grybauskas, Algirdas Puisys; J Oral maxillofacSurg 2010.
4. Influence of the size of the micro gap on crestal bone changes around titanium implants. A histometric evalution of unloaded non-submerged implants in the canine mandibula; Joachim S, Hermann JS, John D, Schoolfield, Robert K, Schenk, Daniel Buser and David L Cochran. Journal of Periodontology. October 2001
5. Microleakage into and from two-stage implants; An in vitro comparative study; Wendel Teixeira, Ricardo Faria Ribeiro, Sandra Sato, Vinicius Pedrazzi. The international Journal of oral & maxillofacial implants. July 2011.
6. Momen A. Atieh, Hadeel M, Ahmad H. Atieh; “Platform switching for marginal bone preservation around dental implants; A systematic review and meta-analysis” J periodontal 2010.
7. “The soft tissue barrier at implants and teeth”; Berglundh T, mLindhe J, Ericsson I, Marinello CP, Liljenberg B, Thomsen P; Clinical implants Res 1991; 2:81-90
8. The peri-implant Sulcus Compared with internal implant and superstructure components: A microbiological analysis. Jan Cosyn, Louis Van Aelst, Bruno Collaert, G Rutger Persson, Hugo De Bruyn; Clinical implant dentistry and related research 2011.
9. “Ultrastructural Stady of the attachment of human gingiva to titanium vivo” T.R Gould, L. Westbury, D.M Brunette J Prosthetic Dent 1984
10. The influence of soft tissue thickness on crestal bone changes around implants: A1-year prospective controlled clinical trial”; Tomas Linkevicius, Peteris Apse, Simonas Grybauskas, Algirdas Puisys; INT J ORAL MAXILLOFAC IMPLANTS-2009.
11. The influence of submerged healing abutment or subcrestal implant placement on soft tissue thickness and crestal bone stability. A 2-year randomized clinical trial. Tomas Linkevichus, Algirdas Puisys, Rokas Linkevicius, Jonas Alkimavicius, Evelina Gineviciute, Laura Linkeviciuce: Clin implant dent relate res 2020.
12. “Ultrastructural Stady of the attachment of human gingiva to titanium vivo” T.R Gould, L. Westbury, D.M Brunette J Prosthetic Dent 1984