The value of the biological width parameter and its structure around the dental implants: a retrospective analysis of the data

Authors

  • M. Yu. Goncharuk-Khomyn Uzhhorod National University
  • M. M. Boychuk Uzhhorod National University
  • S. I. Krichfalushij Uzhhorod National University
  • V. I. Voytovich Uzhhorod National University
  • O. B. Kinash Ivano-Frankivsk National Medical University
  • I. A. Mykhailiuk I. Horbachevsky Ternopil National Medical University
  • V. M. Mykhailiuk I. Horbachevsky Ternopil National Medical University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.11603/2311-9624.2020.4.11716

Keywords:

biological width, dental implants, retrospective analysis

Abstract

Summary. It has been proven that in order to form a reliable soft tissue barrier at the peri-implant area, it is necessary to provide conditions for the biological organization of the minimum geometric parameters of the biological width. Deficiency of the latter is associated with the risk of pathological resorptive processes, further reduction of the surrounding bone ridge level, and a number of subsequent complications.

The aim of the study – to analyze the significance of biological width and its structure features around dental implants on the basis of available scientific literature data.

Materials and Methods. The initial sample of scientific publications related to the research topic was formed using the Google Scholar search engine (https://scholar.google.com/) and the PubMed database (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/) considering relevant keywords (“biowidth”, “biological width”, “dental implants”) and Mesh-terms (search algorithm: ("biology"[MeSH Terms] OR "biology"[All Fields] OR "biological"[All Fields]) AND width[All Fields] AND ("dental implants"[MeSH Terms] OR ("dental"[All Fields] AND "implants"[All Fields]) OR "dental implants"[All Fields])).

Results and Discussion. As a result of the provided analysis it was possible to highlight the following main characteristics of the biological width complex around dental implants: the apical part of the epithelial component characterized by minimal thickness with the formation of thin hemidesmosomal structures around the implant surface; the connective tissue component characterized by the presence of direct contact with the implant surface without signs of pronounced functional attachment; the area of ​​direct contact characterized by the absence of blood vessels and a large number of fibroblast cells in the structure between the collagen fibers; lateral to the above-mentioned zone decrease in the number of fibroblasts and a parallel increase in the size of collagen fibers and the quantitative composition of vascular structures was noted.

Conclusions. Most studies associated with the various aspects of the biological width formation around dental implants have been conducted within animal study models, which to some extent limits the possibilities for direct interpretation of the results in clinical dental practice. Data from both laboratory and clinical studies suggest that the initial deficit in soft tissue thickness at the peri-implant area associated with the process of bone ridge reduction to ensure the formation of the necessary biological width parameters.

References

Gargiulo, A.W., Wentz, F.M., & Orban, B. (1961). Dimensions and relations of the dentogingival junction in humans. J. Periodontol., 32 (3), 261-267.

Gottlieb, B. (1921). Der Epithelansatz am Zahne. Deutsche Monatsschrift fur Zahnheilkunde, 5, 142-147.

Marfino, N.R, Orban, B.J, & Wentz, F.M. (1959). Repair of the dento-gingival junction following surgical intervention. J. Periodontol, 30, 180.

Sicher, H. (1959). Changing concepts of the supporting dental structures. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol., 12 (1), 31-35.

Rezaei Esfahrood, Z., Kadkhodazadeh, M., Gholamin, P., Amid, R., Passanezi, E., & Hosein Zadeh, H. (2016). Biologic width around dental implants: An updated review. J. Dent. Materials Techniq., 5 (2), 68-81.

Glauser, R., Schüpbach, P., Gottlow, J., & Hämmerle, C.H. (2005). Periimplant soft tissue barrier at experimental one piece mini implants with different surface topography in humans: a light microscopic overview and histometric analysis. Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res., 7, s44-s51.

Kan, J.Y., Rungcharassaeng, K., Umezu, K., & Kois, J.C. (2003). Dimensions of per implant mucosa: an evaluation of maxillary anterior single implants in humans. J. Periodontol., 74 (4), 557-562.

Khuller, N., & Sharma, N. (2009). Biologic width: Evaluation and correction of its violation. J. Oral Health Comm. Dent., 3 (1), 20-25.

Linkevicius, T., & Apse, P. (2008). Biologic width around implants. An evidence-based. Stomatologija, 10 (1), 27-35.

Berglundh, T., & Lindhe, J. (1996). Dimension of the periimplant mucosa: biological width revisited. J. Clin. Periodontol., 23 (10), 971-973.

Oh, T.J., Yoon, J., Misch, C.E., & Wang, H.L. (2002). The causes of early implant bone loss: myth or science? J. Periodontol., 73 (3), 322-333.

Dhir, S. (2012). Significance and clinical relevance of biologic width to implant dentistry. J. Interdisciplinary Dent., 2 (2), 84.

Walters, W.H. (2009). Google Scholar search performance: Comparative recall and precision. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 9 (1), 5-24.

Richter, R.R., & Austin, T.M. (2012). Using MeSH (medical subject headings) to enhance PubMed search strategies for evidence-based practice in physical therapy. Phys. Ther., 92 (1), 124-132.

Listgarten, M.A., Lang, N.P., Schroeder, H.E., & Schroeder, A. (1991). Periodontal tissues and their counterparts around endosseous implants. Clin. Oral Implants Res., 2 (1), 1-19.

Hermann, J.S., Buser, D., Schenk, R.K., Higginbottom, F.L., & Cochran, D.L. (2000). Biologic width around titanium implants. A physiologically formed and stable dimension over time. Clin. Oral Implants Res., 11 (1), 1-11.

Cochran, D.L., Hermann, J.S., Schenk, R.K., Higginbottom, F.L., & Buser, D. (1997). 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., 68 (2), 186-197.

Makigusa, K. (2009). Histologic comparison of biologic width around teeth versus implant: The effect on bone preservation. J. Implant Reconstr. Dent., 1 (1), 20-24.

Schmidt, J.C., Sahrmann, P., Weiger, R., Schmidlin, P.R., & Walter, C. (2013). Biologic width dimensions–a systematic review. J. Clin. Periodontol., 40 (5), 493-504.

Romanos, G.E., Traini, T., Johansson, C.B., & Piattelli, A. (2010). Biologic width and morphologic characteristics of soft tissues around immediately loaded implants: studies performed on human autopsy specimens. J. Periodontol., 81 (1), 70-78.

Atsuta, I., Ayukawa, Y., Kondo, R., Oshiro, W., Matsuura, Y., Furuhashi, A., ... & Koyano, K. (2016). Soft tissue sealing around dental implants based on histological interpretation. J. Prosthodont. Res., 60 (1), 3-11.

Hermann, J.S., Cochran, D.L., Hermann, J.S., Buser, D., Schenk, R.K., & Schoolfield, J.D. (2001). Biologic width around one and two piece titanium implants: A histometric evaluation of unloaded nonsubmerged and submerged implants in the canine mandible. Clin. Oral Implants Res., 12 (6), 559-571.

Selliseth, N.J., & Selvig, K.A. (1995). Microvascular adaptation to transmucosal implants. A scanning electron microscopic study in the rat. Clin. Oral Implants Res., 6 (4), 205-212.

Moon, I.S., Berglundh, T., Abrahamsson, I., Linder, E., & Lindhe, J. (1999). The barrier between the keratinized mucosa and the dental implant: an experimental study in the dog. J. Clin. Periodontol., 26 (10), 658-663.

Cochran, D.L., Obrecht, M., Weber, K., Dard, M., Bosshardt, D., Higginbottom, F. L., ... & Jones, A.A. (2014). Biologic width adjacent to loaded implants with machined and rough collars in the dog. Int. J. Periodont. Restorative Dentistry, 34 (6), 773-779.

Blanco, J., Alves, C. C., Nuñez, V., Aracil, L., Muñoz, F., & Ramos, I. (2010). Biological width following immediate implant placement in the dog: flap vs. flapless surgery. Clin. Oral Implants Res., 21 (6), 624-631.

Negri, B., Lopez Mari, M., Maté Sánchez de Val, J.E., Iezzi, G., Bravo González, L. A., & Calvo Guirado, J.L. (2015). Biological width formation to immediate implants placed at different level in relation to the crestal bone: an experimental study in dogs. Clin. Oral Implants Res., 26 (7), 788-798.

Sculean, A., Gruber, R., & Bosshardt, D. D. (2014). Soft tissue wound healing around teeth and dental implants. Journal of Clinical Periodontology, 41, S6-22.

Berglundh, T., Lindhe, J., Ericsson, I., Marinello, C. P., Liljenberg, B., & Thornsen, P. (1991). The soft tissue barrier at implants and teeth. Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2 (2), 81-90.

Judgar, R., Giro, G., Zenobio, E., Coelho, P. G., Feres, M., Rodrigues, J. A., ... & Shibli, J. A. (2014). Biological width around one-and two-piece implants retrieved from human jaws. BioMed Research International, 2014, 850120.

Spinato, S., Stacchi, C., Lombardi, T., Bernardello, F., Messina, M., & Zaffe, D. (2019). Biological width establishment around dental implants is influenced by abutment height irrespective of vertical mucosal thickness: A cluster randomized controlled trial. Clinical Oral Implants Research, 30(7), 649-659.

Vervaeke, S., Dierens, M., Besseler, J., & De Bruyn, H. (2014). The influence of initial soft tissue thickness on per implant bone remodeling. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research, 16 (2), 238-247.

Downloads

Published

2021-02-04

How to Cite

Goncharuk-Khomyn, M. Y., Boychuk, M. M., Krichfalushij, S. I., Voytovich, V. I., Kinash, O. B., Mykhailiuk, I. A., & Mykhailiuk, V. M. (2021). The value of the biological width parameter and its structure around the dental implants: a retrospective analysis of the data. CLINICAL DENTISTRY, (4), 39–48. https://doi.org/10.11603/2311-9624.2020.4.11716

Issue

No. 4 (2020)

Section

Surgical stomatology

License

Copyright (c) 2021 Clinical Dentistry

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.