Journal of Dental Implants
   About JDI | Search | Ahead of print | Current Issue | Archives | Instructions | SubscribeLogin 
Users Online: 85  Wide layoutNarrow layoutFull screen layout Home Print this page  Email this page Small font size Default font size Increase font size


 
 
Table of Contents
REVIEW ARTICLE
Year : 2012  |  Volume : 2  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 110-114

Implanto-gingival complex: An indispensable junctional complex for the clinical success of an implant


Department of Periodontics, Kothiwal Dental College Research Centre, Kanth Road, Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh, India

Date of Web Publication10-Oct-2012

Correspondence Address:
Inderpreet S Narula
Senior Lecturer, Kothiwal Dental College Research Centre, Mora Mustaqueem, Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0974-6781.102225

Rights and Permissions
   Abstract 

Meticulous assessment of gingival and periodontal status around a future implant site is must for optimizing healthy esthetic gingival appearance and to establish a functionally successful implant-supported restoration. A successful osseointegrated implant requires a direct bone-to-implant interface to provide long-term support for a prosthesis. However a cause-effect relationship between bacterial plaque accumulation and the development of inflammatory changes in the soft tissues surrounding oral implants has been shown and known to exist. Thus maintaining a healthy peri-implant status becomes an integral component for the success of implant-supported restorations.

Keywords: Biologic-width, interfacial micro-gap, osseointegration, osteopreservation, peri-implantitis


How to cite this article:
Narula IS, Chaubey KK, Arora VK, Thakur RK, Jafri Z. Implanto-gingival complex: An indispensable junctional complex for the clinical success of an implant. J Dent Implant 2012;2:110-4

How to cite this URL:
Narula IS, Chaubey KK, Arora VK, Thakur RK, Jafri Z. Implanto-gingival complex: An indispensable junctional complex for the clinical success of an implant. J Dent Implant [serial online] 2012 [cited 2018 Jul 22];2:110-4. Available from: http://www.jdionline.org/text.asp?2012/2/2/110/102225


   Introduction Top


Meticulous assessment of gingival and periodontal status around a future implant site is must for optimizing healthy esthetic gingival appearance and to establish a functionally successful implant-supported restoration. It entails to achieve psychologically, esthetically, and functionally successful implant supported restoration. Early osseointegration research concentrated on the adaptation of bone to the alloplastic implant surface and on the clinical survival of implants. A successful osseointegrated implant requires a direct bone-to-implant interface to provide long-term support for a prosthesis. A cause-effect relationship between bacterial plaque accumulation and the development of inflammatory changes in the soft tissues surrounding oral implants has been shown. [1] If this condition is left untreated, it may lead to the progressive destruction of the tissues supporting an implant (peri-implantitis), which may compromise its future and ultimately lead to its failure. [2]

Peri-implant soft tissues: The keratinized tissue and its significance

Relationship has been studied several times between periodontal health and width of attached gingiva. As stressed and concluded by Lang and Loe, [3] 2 mm of keratinized gingival with 1 mm of attached gingival was sufficient to preserve periodontal health. On the contrary, Berglundh et al. [4] concluded that gingival health could be maintained in the absence of keratinized tissue, provided patient maintained proper home care or if the keratinized gingiva was augmented by soft tissue grafting around teeth or dental implants. However it has been found that regardless of plaque control, width of keratinized tissue either around teeth or implant does not influence periodontal or peri-implant or peri-implant health. [5]

Few studies have evaluated soft tissue around dental implants. Presence of keratinizing mucosa surrounding an implant is thought to be a positive factor in maintaining soft-tissue health. [6],[7],[8],[9]

However, at present evidence-based format has failed to show any correlation between the reduced width of keratinized gingiva and peri-implant health.

The connective tissue and epithelium may actually integrate with the titanium surfaces of dental implants, suggesting that the health and resistance to peri-implant disease states may be a reflection of the overall integration process contributing to the functional and esthetic success of implant. [10],[11],[12],[13]


   Chemistry of Bone-Implant Interfacial Healing Top


The integrating and investing peri-implant tissues during implant healing includes cortical and cancellous bone, marrow collagenous tissue and the neurovascular structures, as observed at the healing interface at microscopic level. [14]

Alveolar bone housing around a natural teeth serves to provide tooth integrity and transmit the stress of occlusal forces to absorbed by force-dissipating periodontal ligament and surrounding bone. New bone and collagenous investing tissues are laid down to become part of the healed tissue around the implant. The biomechanical stress pattern at the bone-implant interface determines the amount and distribution of collagenous connective tissue during healing and under subsequent loading of implant superstructures. One stage hypofunctional healing with controlled micromovement is believed to promote the controlled deposition of a collagenous, osteogenic peri-implant ligament, and the osteopreservation mode of tissue integration. [15],[16]

The surface oxide thickness has been found to increase much faster at the implant position in bone than in air. [17]

The mechanism involved may include metal atom/ion diffusion out of the oxide surface followed by oxidation or oxygen diffusion from an oxygen carrying species at the oxide surface to the metal oxide interface. Other components that can contribute to the growth and modification of the oxide include hydrogen atoms (forming hydroxide) mineral ions of calcium and phosphorus.

When in contact with air or water, titanium quickly forms and surface oxide layer of thickness 3 to 5 nm at room temperature owing to which titanium is one of the most resistant metals contributing to its high bio-compatibility.

However, there also exists possibility of dissolution of oxide layer termed as corrosion.

Adequate host tissue response at the bone-implant interface involves bone remodeling with a gradual functional adaptation to the loads applied at the host site.

Implanto-gingival complex

The implanto-gingival tissues serve as barrier function and necessitate the integration of three types of tissues: bone, soft connective tissue, and epithelium. The morphology of the healthy soft tissue adjacent to teeth has many features in common with that adjacent to implants: Both types of tissue have (a) a well-keratinized oral epithelium, (b) a junctional epithelium, and (c) a connective tissue lateral to the junctional epithelium and between the bone crest and the most apical extension of the junctional epithelium.

Whenever the oral mucosa is pierced by any structure, be it tooth during eruption or an implant, the epithelial cells are known to proliferate and migrate over the structure. Epithelial cells have the ability to synthesize basal lamina and form hemidesmosomal attachment. Several experimental studies have demonstrated a satisfactory epithelial attachment between oral mucosa and a dental implant.


   Dento-Gingival Unit V/S Implant-Gingival Complex Top


The tooth and its supporting tissues have a precise embryological origin from dental follicle and therefore the investing tissue cells are genetically determined to form periodontium and its surrounding structures. Thus formed periodontal ligament has unique feature of adaptive remodeling owing to the presence of fibroblast population remodeling the collagen and ground substance. On the other hand, the soft tissues formed around the implant surface are not directly derived from the dental follicle, and thus do not have the ability to remodel and adapt to the stresses exerted upon the implant.

It is currently accepted that the implant-soft-tissue interface has certain similarities with that of natural teeth, including an oral epithelium, a sulcular epithelium, and a junctional epithelium with underlying connective tissue. [18] The most striking difference from the natural dentition is in the structure of the underlying connective tissue, which has been studied in vitro and in vivo.

Berglundh et al. [4] have demonstrated a cuff-like barrier of well-keratinized oral epithelium adhering to both teeth and implants. One difference was that collagen fibers of the peri-implant mucosa appeared to run parallel with the surface of the transmucosal abutment. Berglundh et al. [19] observed that the peri-implant tissues may have an impaired defense system, due to the finding that peri-implant tissues are virtually devoid of vascular supply. The vascular topography of the soft tissues around implants demonstrates that the soft tissue blood supply is derived from terminal branches of larger vessels from the bone periosteum at the implant site. Blood vessels adjacent to junctional epithelium around implants reveal a characteristic "crevicular plexus", but blood vessels adjacent to the connective tissue are sparse and often lacking.

Moon et al. [20] postulated that the fibroblast-rich layer adjacent to the titanium surface has a role in the maintenance of a proper seal between the oral environment and the peri-implant tissue.

Several weeks are required to obtain sufficient soft tissue dimensions and connective tissue quality of the peri-implant mucosa as well as an adequate degree of osseointegration. [21],[22],[23] Soft tissue healing around implants results in the establishment of a barrier epithelium and a zone of connective tissue integration, the dimensions of which constitutes the biological width. [24],[25],[26] Repeated abutment disconnection and reconnection resulted in an apical shift of the barrier epithelium and connective tissue attachment as well as loss of marginal bone. A single shift from a healing abutment to a permanent abutment, however, did not cause apparent effects on the soft and hard tissue integration to the implant. [27]

Buser et al. [28] concluded that the different surface textures of the dental implants did not influence the healing pattern of the soft tissues and found nonkeratinized sulcular epithelium with a zone of dense circular fibers close to the implant surface.

The depth of the implant in the bone affects the peri-implant soft tissues. Todescan et al. [29] placed implants at varying heights in the bone: 1 mm above the crest, even with the crest, and 1 mm below the crest of alveolar bone and found that there was a tendency for the epithelium and connective tissue to be longer when the implants were placed deeper. Abrahamsson et al. [30] and Berglundh et al. [31] that the epithelium establishes an attachment of approximately 2 mm, and the connective tissue, an attachment of approximately 1 mm around dental implants.

Implant-abutment interfacial "Micro-Gap".

Implant-abutment interface creates a small micro-gap that has been implicated in the ongoing health of soft tissue surrounding implants. [31],[32],[33],[34],[35],[36],[37] In two-part implants, the interface or "gap" between the transmucosal and intraosseous components was suggested to have a detrimental effect on the marginal bone level. Thus, results from animal experiments indicated that crestal bone loss of about 2 mm occurred around custom-made two-part implants with a gap size of about 50 mm. [25],[26]

Hermann et al. [26] in an experimental study in dogs evaluated healing around one- and two-part implants. The two-part implants were placed in such a way that the interface or "gap" between the two components was located either in level with 1 mm above or 1 mm below the crestal bone. Histological examinations made 6 months after implant installation revealed that the presence of a "gap" or interface between implant components had a significant effect on the resulting bone level. Thus, at two-part implants crestal bone loss in combination with an apical shift of the soft tissue margin was more pronounced than at one-part implants. However, marginal bone support at level with or even above the abutment-implant borderline, with osseointegration coronal to the abutment-implant interface has also been reported. [38]

Peri-implant probing

An increased probing depth is a sign of reduced tissue resistance to probing, which in turn is interpreted as an indication of the presence of an inflammatory cell infiltrate in the gingival tissue. [39] Periodontal probing is commonly used to monitor tissue heights. Quirynen et al. [40] assessed various types of periodontal probes to determine which was the most reliable method to measure clinical attachment level and whether a relationship between bone and attachment levels around dental implants exists. The authors concluded that for implants with healthy gingiva, the clinical attachment level is a reliable indicator of bone level. Etter et al. [41] determined that healing of the epithelial attachment after probing around dental implants is complete after 5 days and does not appear to have any detrimental effects on the soft-tissue seal and the longevity of oral implants. In the periodontium, connective tissue fibers insert more or less perpendicular into the root surface. This type of attachment does not exist between the peri-implant mucosa and the implant; instead, the collagen fibers of the supracrestal connective tissue at implants lack a true attachment and have an orientation parallel to the implant surface. [4],[42] This different type of supracrestal fiber arrangement could be one source of difference in probe penetration.

Inter-implant distance

Tarnow et al. [43] noted the amount of space between implants and the relationship to bone height. Tarnow suggested that dental implants should have at least 3 mm between them and noted that implants placed closer than 3 mm had increased amounts of crestal bone loss. Implants should be placed in the optimal position mesio-distally, apico-coronally, and bucco-palatally. The mesio-distal dimension between adjacent teeth should be 6 to 9 mm to ensure minimal (1.5 mm) distance between implant fixture and adjacent teeth. [44],[45] Natural buccal and proximal restorative contour can be ensured by correctly orienting the implant in a bucco-palatal position. A minimum space of 2 mm should be maintained on the buccal side in front of the external implant collar surface.

Criteria of success

Albrektsson et al. [46] included the following: absence of persistent subjective complains, such as pain, foreign body sensation, and/or dysestesia; absence of peri-implant infection with suppuration; absence of mobility; absence of a continuous radiolucency around the implant; and vertical bone loss less than 1.5 mm in the first year of function.

"Biologic Width" around implant

A biologic width has been reported in several studies which demonstrated that the mean height of the supra alveolar soft tissue at implant sites was 3 to 4 mm. The dimensions of the peri-implant soft tissues (i.e. the Biologic Width), as evaluated by histometric measurements, are significantly influenced by the presence/ absence of a microgap (interface) between the implant and the abutment, and the location of this microgap (interface) in relation to the crest of the bone. Biologic-width around one-piece implants is more similar to natural teeth dimensions as compared to two-piece implants, either being placed according to a submerged or a nonsubmerged technique. [26] Cochran et al. [25] showed that an area of epithelial attachment with the implant surface occurs similar in morphology to that which is found around natural teeth. In addition, an area of connective tissue contact was found between the apical extension of the junctional epithelium and the alveolar bone comprising the first bone-to-implant contact. The dimensions of these tissues, the biologic width, for nonsubmerged, one-piece implants were demonstrated to be similar to the dimensions for the same tissues described for natural teeth. [47],[48] Sicher [49] indicated that the connective tissue attachment was the most stable component of the soft tissue unit while the junctional epithelium was more variable in its dimension. Weber et al. [50] found significant differences between implant types. Epithelium had a mean length of 1.18 mm for nonsubmerged implants and a 1.71 mm length around submerged implants.


   Summary Top


Early osseointegration research concentrated on the adaptation of bone to the alloplastic implant surface and on the clinical survival of implants. A successful osseointegrated implant requires a direct bone-to-implant interface to provide long-term support for a prosthesis. A cause-effect relationship between plaque and implant may lead to the progressive destruction of the supporting tissues (peri-implantitis), which may compromise its future and ultimately lead to its failure. Hence a pre-treatment planning of a future implant-supported restoration requires an insight into the factors governing the restoration which includes the implanto-gingival complex, inter-implant distance, peri-implant probing depth, the interfacial micro-gap and the biologic width.


   Acknowledgment Top


It takes me immense pleasure to acknowledge the hard-work of my collegues and my seniors including Dr. KK Chaubey, Prof. (Periodontics), Dr. VK Arora Prof. (Periodontics), Dr. Rajesh Thakur, Asso. Prof. (Periodontics), and Dr. Zeba Jafri, Senior Lecturer (Periodontics) without whom this work would not have been possible to carry out.

 
   References Top

1.Pontoriero R, Tonelli MP, Carnevale G, Mombelli A, Nyman SR, Lang NP. Experimentally induced peri-implant mucositis. Clin Oral Implants Res 1994;5:254-9.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.Esposito M, Hirsch J-M, Lekholm U, Thomsen P. Differential diagnosis and treatment strategies for biologic complications and failing oral implants. A review of the literature. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1999;14:473-90.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.Lang NP, Loe H. The relationship between the width of keratinized gingival and gingival health. J Periodontol 1972;43:623-7.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.Berglundh T, Lindhe J, Ericsson I, Marinello CP, Liljenberg B, Thomsen P. The soft tissue barrier at implants and teeth. Clin Oral Implants Res 1991;2:81-90.  Back to cited text no. 4
[PUBMED]    
5.Schoo WH, Van der Veiden U. Marginal soft tissue recession with and without attached gingiva: A five year longitudinal study. J Periodontol Res 1985;20:209-11.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.Rapley JW, Mills MP, Wylam J. Soft tissue management during implant maintenance. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1992;12:373-81.  Back to cited text no. 6
[PUBMED]    
7.Simons AM, Darany DG, Giordano JR. The use of free gingival grafts in the treatment of peri-implant soft tissue complications: A clinical report. Implant Dent 1993;2:27-30.  Back to cited text no. 7
[PUBMED]    
8.Simons AM, Baima RF. Free gingival grafting and vestibuloplasty with endosseous implant placement: Clinical report. Implant Dent 1994;3:235-8.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.Krygier G, Glick PL, Versman KJ, Dahlin CJ, Cochran DL. To minimize complications, is it essential that implant abutments be surrounded by keratinized tissue? Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1997;12:127.  Back to cited text no. 9
[PUBMED]    
10.Gualini F, Berglundh T. Immunohistochemical characteristics of inflammatory lesions at implants. J Clin Periodontol 2003;30:14-8.  Back to cited text no. 10
[PUBMED]    
11.Murata M, Tatsumi J, Kato Y, Suda S, Nunokawa Y, Kobayashi Y, et al. Osteocalcin, deoxypyridinoline and interleukin-1beta in peri-implant crevicular fluid of patients with peri-implantitis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2002;13:637-43.  Back to cited text no. 11
[PUBMED]    
12.Roos-Jansaker AM, Renvert S, Egelberg J. Treatment of peri-implant infections: A literature review. J Clin Periodontol 2003;30:467-85.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.Porras R, Anderson GB, Caffesse R, Narendran S, Trejo PM. Clinical response to 2 different therapeutic regimens to treat peri-implant mucositis. J Periodontol 2002;73:1118-25.  Back to cited text no. 13
[PUBMED]    
14.Linkow CI, Giauque F, Ghalili R, Ghalili M. Levels of osseointegration of blade/plate form implants. J Oral Implantol 1995;21:23-34.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.Weiss CM. Tissue integration of dental endosseous implants: Description and comparative analysis of the fibro-osseous and osseous integration systems. J Oral Implantol 1986;12:169-214.  Back to cited text no. 15
[PUBMED]    
16.Brunski JB, Moccia AF Jr, Pollack SR, Korostoff E, Trachtenberg DI. The influence of functional use of endosseous dental implants on the tissue-implant interface: Histological aspects. J Dent Res 1979;58:1953-69.  Back to cited text no. 16
[PUBMED]    
17.Lee AJC, Albrektsson T, Branemark Pl, McQueen DH, Clinical applications of biomaterials. In: Lee AJ, et al., editors. Advances in biomaterials. Vol. 4. Clinical applications of biomaterials. New York: John Wiley and Sons; 1982. p. 179-85.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.Newman MG, Fleming TF. Periodontal considerations of implants and implant associated microbiota. J Dent Educ 1988;52:737-44.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.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.  Back to cited text no. 19
[PUBMED]    
20.Moon IS, Berglundh T, Abrahamsson I, Linder E, Lindhe J. The barrier between the keratinized mucosa and the dental implant. An experimental study in the dog. J Clin Periodontol 1999;26:658-63.  Back to cited text no. 20
[PUBMED]    
21.Berglundh T, Abrahamsson I, Lang NP, Lindhe J. De novo alveolar bone formation adjacent to endosseous implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2003;14:251-62.  Back to cited text no. 21
[PUBMED]    
22.Berglundh T, Abrahamsson I, Welander M, Linder E, Lang NP, Lindhe J. Morphogenesis of the periimplant mucosa. An experimental study in dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res 2007;18:1-8.  Back to cited text no. 22
[PUBMED]    
23.Abrahamsson I, Berglundh T, Linder E, Lang NP, Lindhe J. Early bone formation adjacent to rough and turned endosseous implant surfaces. An experimental study in the dog. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004;15:381-91.  Back to cited text no. 23
[PUBMED]    
24.Berglundh T, Lindhe J. Dimension of the peri-implant mucosa. Biological width revisited. J Clin Periodontol 1996;23:971-3.  Back to cited text no. 24
[PUBMED]    
25.Cochran DL, Hermann JS, Schenk RK, Higginbottom FL, Buser D. Biologic width around titanium implants. A histometric analysis of the implanto-gingival junction around unloaded and loaded nonsubmerged implants in the canine mandible. J Periodontol 1997;68:186-98.  Back to cited text no. 25
[PUBMED]    
26.Hermann JS, Buser D, Schenk RK, Schoolfield JD, Cochran DL. Biologic width around one- and two-piece titanium implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2001;12:559-71.  Back to cited text no. 26
[PUBMED]    
27.Abrahamsson I, Berglundh T, Sekino S, Lindhe J. Tissue reactions to abutment shift: An experimental study in dogs. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2003;5:82-8.  Back to cited text no. 27
[PUBMED]    
28.Buser D, Weber HP, Donath K, Fiorellini JP, Paquette DW, Williams RC. Soft tissue reactions to non-submerged unloaded titanium implants in beagle dogs. J Periodontol 1992;63:225-35.  Back to cited text no. 28
[PUBMED]    
29.Todescan FF, Pustiglioni FE, Imbronito AV, Albrektsson T, Giuso M. Influence of the microgap in the peri-implant hard and soft tissues: A histomorphometric study in dogs. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2002;17:467-72.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.Abrahamsson I, Berglundh T, Glantz PO, Lindhe J. The mucosal attachment at different abutments. An experimental study in dogs. J Clin Periodontol 1998;25:721-7.  Back to cited text no. 30
[PUBMED]    
31.Hermann JS, Cochran DL, Nummikoski PV, Buser D. Crestal bone changes around titanium implants. A radiographic evaluation of unloaded nonsubmerged and submerged implants in the canine mandible. J Periodontol 1997;68:1117-30.  Back to cited text no. 31
[PUBMED]    
32.Hermann JS, Buser D, Schenk RK, Cochran DL. Crestal bone changes around titanium implants. A histometric evaluation of unloaded non-submerged and submerged implants in the canine mandible. J Periodontol 2000;71:1412-24.  Back to cited text no. 32
[PUBMED]    
33.Hermann JS, Schoolfield JD, Nummikoski PV, Buser D, Schenk RK, Cochran DL. Crestal bone changes around titanium implants: A methodologic study comparing linear radiographic with histometric measurement. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2001;16:475-85.  Back to cited text no. 33
[PUBMED]    
34.Hermann JS, Schoolfield JD, Schenk RK, Buser D, Cochran DL. Influence of the size of the microgap on crestal bone changes around titanium implants. A histometric evaluation of unloaded non-submerged implants in the canine mandible. J Periodontol 2001;72:1372-83.  Back to cited text no. 34
[PUBMED]    
35.King GN, Hermann JS, Schoolfield JD, Buser D, Cochran DL. Influence of the size of the microgap on crestal bone levels in non-submerged dental implants: A radiographic study in the canine mandible. J Periodontol 2002;73:1111-7.  Back to cited text no. 35
[PUBMED]    
36.Oh TJ, Yoon J, Misch CE, Wang HL. The causes of early implant bone loss: Myth or science? J Periodontol 2002;73:322-33.  Back to cited text no. 36
[PUBMED]    
37.Piattelli A, Vrespa G, Petrone G, Iezzi G, Annibali S, Scarano A. Role of the microgap between implant and abutment: A retrospective histologic evaluation in monkeys. J Periodontol 2003;74:346-52.  Back to cited text no. 37
[PUBMED]    
38.Welander M, Abrahamsson I, Berglundh T. Subcrestal placement of two-part implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009;20:226-31.  Back to cited text no. 38
[PUBMED]    
39.Fowler C, Garrett S, Crigger M, Egelberg J. Histologic probe position in treated and untreated human periodontal tissues. J Clin Periodontol 1982;9:373-85.  Back to cited text no. 39
[PUBMED]    
40.Quirynen M, van Steenberghe D, Jacobs R, Schotte A, Darius P. The reliability of pocket probing around screw-type implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 1991;2:186-92.  Back to cited text no. 40
[PUBMED]    
41.Etter TH, Hakanson I, Lang NP, Trejo PM, Caffesse RG. Healing after standardized clinical probing of the perlimplant soft tissue seal: A histomorphometric study in dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res 2002;13:571-80.  Back to cited text no. 41
    
42.Listgarten MA, Lang NP, Schroeder HE, Schroeder A. Periodontal tissues and their counterparts around endosseous implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 1991;2:1-19.  Back to cited text no. 42
[PUBMED]    
43.Tarnow DP, Cho SC, Wallace SS. The effect of inter-implant distance on the height of inter-implant bone crest. J Periodontol 2000;71:546-9.  Back to cited text no. 43
[PUBMED]    
44.Ohrnell LO, Hirsch JM, Ericsson I, Branemark PI. Single-tooth rehabilitation using osseointegration. A modified surgical and prosthodontic approach. Quintessence Int 1988;19:871-6.  Back to cited text no. 44
    
45.Adell R, Eriksson B, Lekholm U, Branemark PI, Jemt T. Long-term follow-up study of osseointegrated implants in the jaws. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1990;5:347-59.  Back to cited text no. 45
    
46.Albrektsson T, Zarb G, Worthington P, Eriksson AR. The long-term efficacy of currently used dental implants: A review and proposed criteria of success. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1986;1:11-25.  Back to cited text no. 46
[PUBMED]    
47.Gargiulo AW, Wentz FM, Orban B. Dimensions and relations of the dentogingival junction in humans. J Periodontol 1961;32:261-7.  Back to cited text no. 47
    
48.Vacek JS, Gher ME, Assad DA, Richardson AC, Giambarresi LI. The dimensions of the human dentogingival junction. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1994;14:155-65.  Back to cited text no. 48
[PUBMED]    
49.Sicher H. Changing concepts of the supporting dental structures. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1959;12:31-5.  Back to cited text no. 49
[PUBMED]    
50.Weber HP, Buser D, Donath K, Fiorellini JP, Doppalapudi V, Paquette DW, et al. Comparison of healed tissues adjacent to submerged and non-submerged unloaded titanium dental implants. A histomorphometric study in beagle dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res 1996;7:11-9.  Back to cited text no. 50
[PUBMED]    




 

Top
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
    Abstract
   Introduction
    Chemistry of Bon...
    Dento-Gingival U...
   Summary
   Acknowledgment
    References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed2332    
    Printed96    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded466    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal