Biologic Width around one‐ and two‐piece titanium implants: A histometric evaluation of unloaded nonsubmerged and submerged implants in the canine mandible

Abstract

Abstract: Gingival esthetics around natural teeth is based upon a constant vertical dimension of healthy periodontal soft tissues, the Biologic Width. When placing endosseous implants, however, several factors influence periimplant soft and crestal hard tissue reactions, which are not well understood as of today. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to histometrically examine periimplant soft tissue dimensions dependent on varying locations of a rough/smooth implant border in one‐piece implants or a microgap (interface) in two‐piece implants in relation to the crest of the bone, with two‐piece implants being placed according to either a submerged or a nonsubmerged technique. Thus, 59 implants were placed in edentulous mandibular areas of five foxhounds in a side‐by‐side comparison. At the time of sacrifice, six months after implant placement, the Biologic Width dimension for one‐piece implants, with the rough/smooth border located at the bone crest level, was significantly smaller (P<0.05) compared to two‐piece implants with a microgap (interface) located at or below the crest of the bone. In addition, for one‐piece implants, the tip of the gingival margin (GM) was located significantly more coronally (P<0.005) compared to two‐piece implants. These findings, as evaluated by nondecalcified histology under unloaded conditions in the canine mandible, suggest that the gingival margin (GM) is located more coronally and Biologic Width (BW) dimensions are more similar to natural teeth around one‐piece nonsubmerged implants compared to either two‐piece nonsubmerged or two‐piece submerged implants.