Radiographic Evaluation of a Star-shaped Incision Technique

NCT ID: NCT05190614

Last Updated: 2022-01-13

Basic Information

• Recruitment Status: COMPLETED
• Total Enrollment: 24 participants
• Study Classification: OBSERVATIONAL
• Study Start Date: 2019-06-01
• Study Completion Date: 2021-06-01

Brief Summary

To evaluate a star-shaped incision technique to thick-gingiva and thingingiva patients treated with implant-supported fixed prosthesis. The star-shaped incision would be an effective and simple method to reconstruct gingival papillae and avoid the gingival recession in thick-gingiva patients treated with implant-supported fixed prosthesis, and it is worthy of clinical extend.

Detailed Description

Objective: To evaluate a star-shaped incision technique to thick-gingiva and thin-gingiva patients treated with implant-supported fixed prosthesis. Methods and Materials: 24 patients received cross-shaped incision were assigned into thick-gingiva group (16 cases) and thin-gingiva group (8 cases). Follow-up examination was carried out 3 and 12 months after final restoration. Clinical and radiographic evaluation including gingival papilla height, modified plaque index, modified sulcus bleeding index, periodontal depth, and crestal marginal bone level were utilized.

Conditions

Clinical and Radiographic Effect; Thick-gingiva; Thin-gingiva; Implant

Study Design

• Observational Model Type: COHORT
• Study Time Perspective: RETROSPECTIVE

Study Groups

thick-gingiva group

After the insertion of the probe into the facial aspect of the sulcus through the gingival margin, the simple visual method is based on the transparency of the periodontal probe through the gingival margin while probing the buccal sulcus at the midfacial aspect of the tooth. When the outline of the underlying periodontal probe can't be seen through the gingival, the gingival phenotype is considered thick.

No interventions assigned to this group

thin-gingiva group

After the insertion of the probe into the facial aspect of the sulcus through the gingival margin, the simple visual method is based on the transparency of the periodontal probe through the gingival margin while probing the buccal sulcus at the midfacial aspect of the tooth. When the outline of the underlying periodontal probe can be seen through the gingival, the gingival phenotype is considered thin.

The biotype of gingiva

Intervention Type: DIAGNOSTIC_TEST

The biotype of gingival was determined by periodontal probe.

Interventions

The biotype of gingiva

The biotype of gingival was determined by periodontal probe.

Intervention Type: DIAGNOSTIC_TEST

Eligibility Criteria

Inclusion Criteria

1. Good general health, no chronic systemic diseases.

2. All subjects included in this study needed to have one missing premolar or molar teeth with adjacent natural teeth.

3. All subjects included in this study had been treated with one bone-level implant insertion in the premolar or molar region. The patients had insufficient gingival papilla height (referred to contralateral natural tooth which also had insufficient gingival papilla height) and at least 2 mm of keratinized tissue width around the implant.

Exclusion Criteria

1. Active periodontal infections.

2. Heavy smoking (> 10 cigarettes per day).

• Minimum Eligible Age: 22 Years
• Maximum Eligible Age: 58 Years
• Eligible Sex: ALL
• Accepts Healthy Volunteers: Yes

Sponsors

Wen Luo

OTHER

Sponsor Role: lead

Responsible Party

Wen Luo

Associate Professor

Responsibility Role: SPONSOR_INVESTIGATOR

Principal Investigators

Xiaohui Zheng, MD

Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

West China Hospital of Stomatology, Sichuan University, China

Locations

West China Hospital of Stomatology

Chengdu, Sichuan, China

Countries

China

References

1. Du H, Gao M, Qi C, Liu S, Lin Y. Drug-induced gingival hyperplasia and scaffolds: they may be valuable for horizontal food impaction. Med Hypotheses 2010;74(6): 984-5. 2. Bidra AS. Nonsurgical management of inflammatory periimplant disease caused by food impaction: a clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 2014;111(2): 96-100. 3. Berglundh T, Lindhe J, Ericsson I, Mainello CP, Lijenberg B. The soft tissue barrier at implants and teeth. Clin Oral Implants Res 1991; 2: 81-90. 4. Berglundh T, Lindhe J, Jonsson K, Ericsson I. The topography of the vascular systems in the periodontal and peri-implant tissues in the dog. J Clin Periodontol 1994; 21: 189-93. 5. Chow YC, Wang HL. Factors and techniques influencing peri-implant papillae. Implant Dent 2010; 19(3): 208-19. 6. Sanavi F, Weisgold AS, Rose LF. Biologic width and its relation to periodontal biotypes. J Esthet Dent 1998; 10(3): 157-63. 7. De Rouck T, Eghbali R, Collys K, De Bruyn H, Cosyn J. The gingival biotype revisited: transparency of the periodontal probe through the gingival margin as a method to discriminate thin from thick gingiva. J Clin Periodontol 2009; 36(5): 428-33. 8. Olsson M, Lindhe J. Periodontal characteristics in individuals with varying form of the upper central incisors. J Clin Periodontol 1991; 18(1): 78-82. 9. Pontoriero R, Carnevale G. Surgical crown lengthening: a 12-month clinical wound healing study. J Periodontol 2001;72(7): 841-8. 10. Ronay V, Sahrmann P, Bindl A, Attin T, Schmidlin PR. Current status and perspectives of mucogingival soft tissue measurement methods. J Esthet Restor Dent 2011; 23(3):146-56. 11. Mombelli A, van Oosten MA, Schurch E Jr, Land NP. The microbiota associated with successful or failing osseointegrated titanium implants. Oral Microbiol Immunol 1987; 2(4):145-51. 12. Chang M, Wenstrom JL, Odman P, Andersson B. Implant supported single-tooth replacements compared to contralateral natural teeth. Crown and soft tissue dimensions. Clin Oral Implants Res 1999; 10(3): 185-94. 13. Welander M, Abrahamsson I, Berglundh T. The mucosal barrier at implant abutments of different materials. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008;19(7): 635-41. 14. Kajiwara N, Masaki C, Mukaibo T, Kondo Y, Nakamoto T, Hosokawa R. Soft tissue biological response to zirconia and metal implant abutments compared with natural tooth: microcirculation monitoring as a novel bioindicator. Implant Dent 2015; 24(1): 37-41. 15. Muller HP, Heinecke A, Schaller N, Eger T. Masticatory mucosa in subjects with different periodontal phenotypes. J Clin Periodontol 2000; 27(9):621-6. 16. Pradeep AR, Karthikeyan BV. Peri-implant papilla reconstruction: realities and limitations. J Periodontol, 2006. 77(3): p. 534-44. 17. Kan JY, Rungcharassaeng K, Umezu K, Kois JC. Dimensions of peri-implant mucosa: an evaluation of maxillary anterior single implants in humans. J Periodontol 2003;74(4):557-62. 18. Finelle G, Papadimitriou DE, Souza AB, Katebi N, Gallucci GO, Araujo MG. Peri-implant soft tissue and marginal bone adaptation on implant with non-matching healing abutments: micro-CT analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2015; 26(4): e42-6. 19. Farronato D, Santoro G, Canullo L, Botticelli D, Maiorana C, Lang NP. Establishment of the epithelial attachment and connective tissue adaptation to implants installed under the concept of

Reference Type: BACKGROUND

Luo W, Kuang H, Sun H, Huang Y, Wang J, Zheng K, Li Z, Qu Y, Man Y, Wu Y. Star-shaped incision technique for gingiva patients treated with implant-supported fixed prosthesis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2023 Jul 7;102(27):e34324. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000034324.

Reference Type: DERIVED

PMID: 37417601 (View on PubMed)

Other Identifiers

2019021

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id