Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 313

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 46 of the 46 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Significance of Keratinized Mucosa in Maintenance of Dental Implants With Different Surfaces

Open access
Chung, Dyeus M., Oh, Tae‐Ju, Shotwell, Jeffrey L., Misch, Carl E., Wang, Hom‐Lay·2006·Journal of Periodontology
DOI 10.1902/jop.2006.050393
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background: The need for keratinized mucosa (KM) or immobile keratinized mucosa (i.e., attached mucosa [AM]) for the maintenance of osseointegrated endosseous dental implants has been controversial. The purpose of this study was to investigate the significance of KM in the maintenance of root‐form dental implants with different surfaces. Methods: A total of 339 endosseous dental implants in place for at least 3 years in 69 patients were evaluated. The width of KM and AM, modified plaque index (mPI), gingival index (GI), modified bleeding index (mBI), probing depth (PD), and average annual bone loss (ABL) were measured clinically and radiographically by a masked examiner. Based on the amounts of KM or AM, implants were categorized as follows: 1) KM <2 mm (KL); 2) KM ≥2 mm (KU); 3) AM <1 mm (AL); and 4) AM ≥1 mm (AU). Implants were further subdivided into the following four subgroups based on their surface configurations: 1) smooth surface implants (SI) with KM <2 mm (SKL); 2) SI with KM ≥2 mm (SKM); 3) rough surface implants (RI) with KM <2 mm (RKL); or 4) RI with KM ≥2 mm (RKM); or 1) SI with AM <1 mm (SAL); 2) SI with AM ≥1 mm (SAM); 3) RI with AM <1 mm (RAL); or 4) RI with AM ≥1 mm (RAM). The effect of KM or AM on clinical parameters was evaluated by comparing the different KM/AM groups. In addition, the significance of the presence of KM on implant prostheses types (i.e., fixed versus removable) and on implant locations (i.e., anterior versus posterior) was evaluated. Results: Comparison of ABL among the four subgroups in KM or AM failed to reveal statistically significant differences (P >0.05); however, statistically significantly higher GI and mPI were present in SKL or SAL compared to the other three subgroups (P <0.05). GI and mPI were significantly higher in KL (0.94 and 1.51) than KU (0.76 and 1.26) and higher in AL (0.95 and 1.50) than AU (0.70 and 1.19) (P <0.05), respectively. The difference in GI between posterior implants with or without an adequate amount of KM was also significant (P <0.05). Conclusions: The absence of adequate KM or AM in endosseous dental implants, especially in posterior implants, was associated with higher plaque accumulation and gingival inflammation but not with more ABL, regardless of their surface configurations. Randomized controlled clinical trials are needed to confirm the results obtained in this retrospective clinical study.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1902/jop.2006.050393

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

3 retracted

Cited by

See all 313

Metadata

Authors
Chung, D. M., Oh, T., Shotwell, J. L., Misch, C. E., & Wang, H.
Venue
Journal of Periodontology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2006-08
Volume
77
Issue
8
Pages
1410-1420
ISSN
  • 0022-3492 (ISSN-L)
  • 1943-3670
DOI
10.1902/jop.2006.050393
OpenAlex
W2072540516
Cited by
313
References
46
FWCI
5.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.