You are currently viewing A “teoria dos volumes”: possíveis fatores que controlam as relações entre tecidos moles e duros na Implantodontia

A “teoria dos volumes”: possíveis fatores que controlam as relações entre tecidos moles e duros na Implantodontia

“Teoria dos volumes”: trabalho explora como dimensões se relacionam em situações clínicas conhecidas e como influenciam no volume ideal ao redor do ombro do implante.

AUTORES

Sergio Maia
Especialista em Periodontia – APCD Bauru; Especialista em Implantodontia – USP Bauru; Mestre em Implantodontia – Unisa; Professor do curso de especialização em Implantodontia – CPGO; Coordenador do aperfeiçoamento em Implantodontia – ABO Natal/RN.
Orcid: 0000-0002-3740-3562.

Valdir Antonio Muglia
Especialista em Prótese Dentária, mestre e doutor em Reabilitação Oral, e professor associado do Depto. de Materiais Dentários e Prótese – Forp-USP.
Orcid: 0000-0002-7966-8892.

RESUMO

Embora seja difícil definir o volume ideal de tecidos moles e duros ao redor do ombro do implante para garantir a papila interproximal/ interimplantar e uma margem de mucosa estável, a análise da literatura revela que pode existir um controle delicado entre os compartimentos formados por estas estruturas, criando-se a teoria dos volumes. Neste sentido, rebordos cicatrizados teriam dois volumes menores (tábuas vestibular e lingual) e um volume maior (distância vestibulolingual preenchida por osso maduro). Por outro lado, alvéolos de extração teriam os mesmos compartimentos, mas seu volume interno preenchido parcialmente por osso imaturo e o implante dentário. Além disso, o uso da plataforma switching criaria um volume adicional para preenchimento vertical de tecido duro e mole. Como a espessura ideal de osso no lado vestibular de um implante deve ser de pelo menos 2 mm, a maioria das situações clínicas precisará de aumento ósseo. Para que uma papila entre dois implantes adjacentes seja estabelecida, a distância interimplante deve ser superior a 3 mm. Alternativamente, é necessário um volume ósseo adicional no lado vestibular da papila. A espessura ideal de tecido mole seria de 4 mm na vertical e 3 mm na horizontal, sendo que a espessura de tecido mole horizontal manteria os tecidos verticalmente e a quantidade de tecido mole na vertical seria responsável pela manutenção do tecido ósseo. Entretanto, dados científicos adicionais corroborando estas situações ainda não foram elaborados.

Palavras-chave – Osso; Tecido mole; Implante imediato; Teoria dos volumes.

ABSTRACT

Although it is difficult to define the optimal volume of soft and hard tissues around the dental implant shoulder to ensure the interproximal/inter-implant papilla and a stable mucosal margin, a literature analysis reveals that there may be a delicate control between the compartments formed by these structures, creating the theory of volumes. In this sense, healed ridges would have two smaller volumes (buccal and lingual bone plates) and a larger volume (buccolingual distance filled by mature bone). On the other hand, the extraction alveoli would have the same compartments, but their internal volume partially filled by immature bone and dental implant. In addition, the use of platform switching modes would create additional volume for vertical filling of hard and soft tissues. Because the ideal bone thickness on the buccal aspect of an implant should be at least 2 mm, most clinical situations will need bone augmentation. For a papilla between two adjacent implants to be established, the inter-implant distance must be greater than 3 mm. Alternatively, an additional bone volume is required on the buccal papillary aspect. The ideal soft tissue thickness would be 4 mm vertically and 3 mm horizontally, being that the horizontal soft tissue thickness would keep the tissues vertically and the amount of soft tissue vertically would be responsible for the maintenance of bone tissue. However, additional scientific data corroborating the above-mentioned situations still have not been elaborated.

Key words – Bone; Soft tissue; Immediate implant placement; Theory of volumes.

 Referências

  1. Grunder U, Gracis S, Capelli M. Influence of the 3-D bone-to-implant relationship on esthetics. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2005;25(2):113-9.
  2. de Santana RB, Ferreira ICC, Costa JFP, De Oliveira RG, Verner FS, de Santana CMM et al. Evaluation of alveolar bone dimensions and root positioning of anterior teeth in the maxilla. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2023;43(1):39-45.
  3. Todorovic VS, Postma TC, Hoffman J, van Zyl AW. Buccal and palatal alveolar bone dimensions in the anterior maxilla: a micro-CT study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2023;25(2):261-70.
  4. da Costa FA, Perussolo J, Dias DR, Araújo MG. Identification of thin and thick gingival phenotypes by two transparency methods: a diagnostic accuracy study. J Periodontol 2023;94(5):673-82.
  5. 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(2):81-90.
  6. 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.
  7. Salama H, Salama MA, Garber D, Adar P. The interproximal height of bone: a guidepost to predictable aesthetic strategies and soft tissue contours in anterior tooth replacement. Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent 1998;10(9):1131-41; quiz 1142.
  8. Grunder U, Spielman HP, Gaberthüel T. Implant-supported single tooth replacement in the aesthetic region: a complex challenge. Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent 1996;8(9):835-42, quiz 844.
  9. Tarnow DP, Cho SC, Wallace SS. The effect of inter-implant distance on the height of inter-implant bone crest. J Periodontol 2000;71(4):546-9.
  10. Tarnow DP, Chu SJ. History and rationale for anterior and posterior single-tooth implants. In: Tarnow DP, Chu SJ (eds). The single‑tooth implant. A minimally invasive approach for anterior and posterior extraction sockets. Quintessence Publishing Co Inc. 2020. p.1-16.
  11. Leblebicioglu B, Rawal S, Mariotti A. A review of the functional and esthetic requirements for dental implants. J Am Dent Assoc 2007;138(3):321-9.
  12. Buser D, Chen ST, Weber HP, Belser UC. Early implant placement following single-tooth extraction in the esthetic zone: biologic rationale and surgical procedures. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2008;28(5):441-51.
  13. Morris HF, Ochi S, Orenstein IH, Petrazzuolo V. AICRG, Part V: factors influencing implant stability at placement and their influence on survival of Ankylos implants. J Oral Implantol 2004;30(3):162-70.
  14. Steigenga JT, al-Shammari KF, Nociti FH, Misch CE, Wang HL. Dental implant design and its relationship to long-term implant success. Implant Dent 2003;12(4):306-17.
  15. Spray JR, Black CG, Morris HF, Ochi S. The influence of bone thickness on facial marginal bone response: stage 1 placement through stage 2 uncovering. Ann Periodontol 2000;5(1):119-28.
  16. Muglia VA. One abutment at one time, chamber concept e provisionalização em implantação imediata na região anterior de maxila: relato de caso com sete anos de acompanhamento. ImplantNews Reab Oral 2021;6(4):518-26.
  17. García JJ, Sanguino D. A new protocol for immediate implants. The rule of the 5 triangles: a case report. Inspyred: The alternative EAO voice 2014;2(2):5-8.
  18. Degidi M, Nardi D, Piattelli A. One abutment at one time: non-removal of an immediate abutment and its effect on bone healing around subcrestal tapered implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011;22(11):1303-7.
  19. Linkevicius T, Puisys A, Linkevicius R, Alkimavicius J, Gineviciute E, Linkeviciene L. The influence of submerged healing abutment or subcrestal implant placement on soft tissue thickness and crestal bone stability. A 2-year randomized clinical trial. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2020;22(4):497-506.
  20. Chou CT, Morris HF, Ochi S, Walker L, DesRosiers D. AICRG, Part II: crestal bone loss associated with the Ankylos implant: loading to 36 months. J Oral Implantol 2004;30(3):134-43.
  21. Kupershmidt I, Levin L, Schwartz-Arad D. Inter-implant bone height changes in anterior maxillary immediate and non-immediate adjacent dental implants. J Periodontol 2007;78(6):991-6.
  22. Traini T, Novaes Jr. AB, Papalexiou V, Piattelli A. Influence of interimplant distance on bone microstructure: a histomorphometric study in dogs. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2008;10(1):1-10.
  23. Traini T, Novaes AB, Piattelli A, Papalexiou V, Muglia VA. The relationship between interimplant distances and vascularization of the interimplant bone. Clin Oral Implants Res 2010;21(8):822-9.
  24. Muglia VA, Provinciati MM, Barros RRM, Fernandes PG, Novaes Jr. AB. Distância interimplantar: um fator a ser observado na reabilitação oral implantossuportada. Revisão crítica e apresentação de um caso clínico com três anos de acompanhamento. ImplantNews 2015;12(4):462-8.
  25. Atieh MA, Ibrahim HM, Atieh AH. Platform switching for marginal bone preservation around dental implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Periodontol 2010;81(10):1350-66.
  26. Novaes Jr. AB, Barros RR, Muglia VA, Borges GJ. Influence of interimplant distances and placement depth on papilla formation and crestal resorption: a clinical and radiographic study in dogs. J Oral Implantol 2009;35(1):18-27.
  27. Luongo R, Traini T, Guidone PC, Bianco G, Cocchetto R, Celletti R. Hard and soft tissue responses to the platform-switching technique. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2008;28(6):551-7.
  28. Veis A, Parissis N, Tsirlis A, Papadeli C, Marinis G, Zogakis A. Evaluation of peri-implant marginal bone loss using modified abutment connections at various crestal level placements. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2010;30(6):609-17.
  29. Novaes Jr. AB, de Oliveira RR, Muglia VA, Papalexiou V, Taba M. The effects of interimplant distances on papilla formation and crestal resorption in implants with a morse cone connection and a platform switch: a histomorphometric study in dogs. J Periodontol 2006;77(11):1839-49.
  30. Wheeler SL. Implant complications in the esthetic zone. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007;65(7 suppl.1):93-102. Erratum in: J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2008;66(10):2195-6.
  31. Linkevicius T, Apse P, Grybauskas S, Puisys A. The influence of soft tissue thickness on crestal bone changes around implants: a 1-year prospective controlled clinical trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009;24(4):712-9.
  32. Rodriguez AM, Rosenstiel SF. Esthetic considerations related to bone and soft tissue maintenance and development around dental implants: report of the Committee on Research in Fixed Prosthodontics of the American Academy of Fixed Prosthodontics. J Prosthet Dent 2012;108(4):259-67.
  33. Priest GF. The esthetic challenge of adjacent implants. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007;65(7 suppl.1):2-12. Erratum in: J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2008;66(10):2195-6.
  34. Berglundh T, Lindhe J. Dimension of the periimplant mucosa. Biological width revisited. J Clin Periodontol 1996;23(10):971-3.
  35. Linkevicius T, Apse P, Grybauskas S, Puisys A. Influence of thin mucosal tissues on crestal bone stability around implants with platform switching: a 1-year pilot study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2010;68(9):2272-7.
  36. Jensen OT, Adams MW, Cottam JR, Parel SM, Phillips WR 3rd. The all-on-4 shelf: mandible. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2011;69(1):175-81.
Tags: , , , , , , , ,