Article

Feature Article
Abstract

Constant and healthy vertical dimensions of the peri-implant soft tissues are very important with regard to pink esthetics and peri-implant papilla formation. Around teeth and implants, these vertical soft tissue dimensions are represented by sulcus depth, junctional epithelium and connective tissue contact, which as a unit make up the biologic width. Experimental studies reported similar qualitative and quantitative soft tissue integration and biologic width dimensions for monotype and 2-piece tissue level zirconia implants compared to 2-piece tissue level titanium implants. However, faster maturation processes of epithelial and connective tissues around zirconia implants were assumed. For both implant materials, biologic width dimensions and peri-implant papilla height were independent from loading and surgical protocol but dependent on implant design and position of the micro-gap between implant and prosthetic supra structure. Over time, clinical studies reported a significant increase in peri-implant papilla height formation for zirconia implants, whereas the distance between the alveolar crest at the neighboring tooth and the lowest point of the contact area of the crown were considered to be an important factor affecting papilla formation. In conclusion, material characteristics – ceramics compared to titanium – did not have any major/significant effects on peri-implant soft tissue integration. Thus, similar physiological processes might be supposed for both materials with regard to morphogenesis of peri-implant soft tissues.

Introduction

In the first decades of implant dentistry, the achievement of biological stabilization of the implant in the surrounding bone tissue known as osseointegration was the major goal for clinicians, scientists and patients. The development of micro-roughened surfaces made titanium and titanium-alloy implants a standard and extremely reliable treatment procedure in dentistry since their osseous integration as well as their clinical performance were significantly improved (Roehling et al. 2015). Nowadays, patients’ demands with regard to implant dentistry have changed. Besides successful osseous integration, esthetic outcomes – especially in the anterior region – have become even more important. With regard to pink esthetics like soft tissue margin and interdental peri-implant papilla formation, healthy and constant vertical peri-implant soft tissue dimensions – represented by the biologic width – are very important. Moreover, from a periodontal point of view, gingival tissues around implants have a similar barrier function to dento-gingival tissues around teeth to help prevent bacterial peri-implant diseases (Berglundh et al. 1991). Thus, peri-implant soft tissue integration – represented by epithelial and connective tissue – is as important as osseous integration (Cochran et al. 1997).

In recent years, based on increasing demand from patients for metal-free reconstructions, ceramic implants made from zirconium dioxide (zirconia, ZrO2) have become a viable and evidence-based treatment option. The latest market analyses have even concluded that ceramic implants could become a “game changer” in implant dentistry. However, the first generation of zirconia implants had a rather smooth implant surface and, consequently, showed decreased survival rates compared to established titanium implants (Roehling et al. 2016). Later on, manufacturing processes were improved to fabricate fracture-resistant, micro-roughened zirconia implants. Experimental and clinical studies reported that the latest generation zirconia implants with a micro-rough surface show a similar osseointegrative capacity and comparable clinical outcomes to micro-rough titanium implants (Gahlert et al. 2016, Grassi et al. 2015, Janner et al. 2017). Empirical and clinical experience confirms stable and healthy peri-implant soft tissue conditions around zirconia implants (Figs 1 and 2) and might even assume advantages with regard to pink esthetics compared to titanium implants. However, little evidence-based data dealing with soft tissue integration around zirconia dental implants is available.

open_in_full
open_in_full
open_in_full
open_in_full
open_in_full
open_in_full
open_in_full
open_in_full
Fig. 1a: Clinical situation at implant placement. Implant type: Straumann® PURE Ceramic Implant, monotype implant, Institut Straumann AG, Basel, CH
Fig. 1b: Clinical situation 3 months after implant placement
Fig. 1c: Definitive ceramic crown with cement-draining hole on the palatal side
Fig. 1d: Clinical situation at cementation of the definitive crown 6 months after implant placement. To avoid excessive cement during the cementation procedure, the ceramic crown was designed with a cement-draining hole on the palatal side. The fixation of the crown was done according to a defined cementation protocol, which included a moderate/thin application of the cement (glass ionomer cement) by using a small dental brush. Additionally, during the hardening procedure, submarginal cement excess was removed with a special dental floss (Superfloss)
Fig. 1e: Clinical situation at cementation of the definitive crown 6 months after implant placement. To avoid excessive cement during the cementation procedure, the ceramic crown was designed with a cement-draining hole on the palatal side. The fixation of the crown was done according to a defined cementation protocol, which included a moderate/thin application of the cement (glass ionomer cement) by using a small dental brush. Additionally, during the hardening procedure, submarginal cement excess was removed with a special dental floss (Superfloss)
Fig. 1f: Clinical situation 8 months after cementation of definitive crown
Fig. 1g: Clinical situation 20 months after cementation of definitive crown
Fig. 1h: Radiographic control 20 months after cementation of definitive crown
Fig. 1a Fig. 1b Fig. 1c Fig. 1d Fig. 1e Fig. 1f Fig. 1g Fig. 1h
open_in_full
open_in_full
open_in_full
open_in_full
open_in_full
open_in_full
open_in_full
open_in_full
Fig. 2a: Initial clinical situation several months after extraction of tooth 14 by another practitioner
Fig. 2b: Clinical situation at implant placement. 2-piece zirconia implant with metal transfer piece. Implant type: Straumann® PURE Ceramic Implant, Institut Straumann AG, Basel, CH
Fig. 2c: Clinical situation with temporary crown 4 months after implant placement
Fig. 2d: Screw-retained definitive crown
Fig. 2e: Clinical situation 6 months after implant placement. Delivery of definitive crown
Fig. 2f: Clinical situation at delivery of definitive crown
Fig. 2g: Clinical situation 2 weeks after delivery of definitive crown
Fig. 2h: Radiographic control at delivery of definitive crown
Fig. 2a Fig. 2b Fig. 2c Fig. 2d Fig. 2e Fig. 2f Fig. 2g Fig. 2h