Rehabilitation with dental implants of oral cancer patients.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the risks and complications of rehabilitation with dental implants after tumour surgery and radiotherapy. After a disease-free survival of 18 months, 29 patients who had undergone oral cancer treatment were rehabilitated with dental implants. The complication rate of implants in irradiated, non-irradiated and grafted bone was analyzed at least 3 years after implant placement. In the healing period, 28.6% of the implants in irradiated bone and 8.4% in non-irradiated bone showed soft tissue complications. Of the implants, 26.7% in the irradiated and 14.7% in the non-irradiated mandibular bone were lost in the first 36 months after placement. Thirty-one point two percent of implants inserted in non-irradiated bone grafts were affected and did not osseointegrate. Of 109 inserted implants, 70 were suitable for prosthetic rehabilitation. There are high complication rates after implant placement in oral cancer patients. Irradiation adversely affects soft tissue healing. Osseointegration is frequently disturbed, especially when implants were placed in non-vascularized bone grafts.     

Implant survival in mandibles of irradiated oral cancer patients

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to analyze long-term implant survival in the mandible after radiotherapy and radical surgery in oral cancer patients. STUDY DESIGN: Between 1990 and 2003, 71 patients (15 females, 56 males; average age 57.8 years, range 16-84.1 years) were treated with dental implants after radiochemotherapy and ablative surgery of oral cancer. Radiation therapy was delivered in daily fractions of 2 Gy given on 25 days (total dose of 50 Gy). Oral defects were reconstructed microsurgically with jejunal, iliac crest or radial forearm grafts. Thereafter 316 dental implants were placed in the non-irradiated residual bone (84; 27%), irradiated residual bone (154; 49%) or grafted bone (78; 25%) at various intervals (mean interval 1.41 (+/- 1.01) years, range 0.34-6.35 years). RESULTS: The mean follow-up time after implant insertion was 5.42 (+/- 3.21) years (range 0.3-13.61 years). The overall 2-, 3-, 5-, and 8-year survival rates of all implants were 95%, 94%, 91% and 75%. Forty-four implants were lost in 21 patients during the observation period. Irradiation of the mandibular bone showed significantly (P = 0.0028) lower implant survival compared with non-irradiated mandibular bone. The 8-year survival rate in the non-irradiated residual bone (two loss), irradiated residual bone (29 loss) or grafted bone (13 loss) were 95%, 72% and 54%, respectively. Time of implantation after irradiation showed no statistically significant influence. Implant brand, length or diameter or the incidence of resective surgery on the mandible and gender of patients had no statistically significant influence on implant survival. CONCLUSION: Radiation therapy with 50 Gy was significantly related to shorter implant survival in mandibular bone. Survival was lowest in grafted bone. Time of implant placement had no statistically significant influence on survival under the conditions of this study. Although implant survival is lower in irradiated mandibles, implants significantly facilitate prosthodontic treatment and enhance outcome of oral rehabilitation in cancer patients.     

Implant survival or implant success? Evaluation of implant-based prosthetic rehabilitation in head and neck cancer patients—a prospective observational study

Objectives

Definition of implant success is unclear in prosthetic implant-based rehabilitation of head neck cancer patients.

Materials and methods

Fifty-two patients with 309 inserted implants were included in this prospective observational study. Implant survival (in situ and loaded) and implant success (modified Albrektsson criteria) at 2-year follow-up were evaluated under the influence of patient- and implant-specific variables.

Results

Thirty-nine patients with 234 implants finished the study. Overall implant survival after 2 years was 92.3% (216/234) with an osseointegration rate of 94% (220/234). Implant success was 78.6% (184/234). Main reasons for failure were “bone resorption > 1.7mm” (n = 27, 11.5%) and “implant not in situ or not loaded” (n = 18, 7.7%). Smoking (OR 3.1, p = 0.034), bone grafts (OR 2.4, p = 0.021) and radiation dose > 60 Gy (OR 3.8, p = 0.025) revealed as significant predictors for implant failure.

Conclusion

Implant survival differs significantly from implant success in head and neck cancer patients. Implant success is mainly determined by radiographic peri-implant bone resorption.

Clinical relevance

Dealing with head and neck cancer patients a higher amount of peri-implant bone resorption must be taken into account and warrants for intensified implant monitoring.

     

Virtual planning,simultaneous dental implantation and CAD/CAM plate fixation: a paradigm change in maxillofacial reconstruction

Prosthetic rehabilitation in patients undergoing reconstructive surgery using vascularized free flaps is challenging, and functional rehabilitation of the patient with a fixed prosthesis is rare. Virtually planned maxillofacial reconstruction including simultaneous dental implantation according to the prosthodontic ideal position of the implants could further enhance dental rehabilitation. The data of 21 patients undergoing fibula free flap reconstructive surgery with CAD/CAM patient-specific reconstruction plates during the years 2015–2018 were analysed, including the applicability of the virtual plan, flap survival, duration of surgery, ischemia time, simultaneous dental implantation, implant exposure, and postoperative complications. The virtual plan could be translated to surgery in all cases. In total, 76 dental implants were simultaneously placed during primary reconstruction in the 21 patients. For 38.1% of these patients, the implants could be uncovered in secondary surgery; the mean duration until exposure was 7.6 months. The implant survival rate was 97.4% (74/76). Wound infection requiring a secondary intervention occurred in 23.8% of patients during follow-up. Virtually planned reconstruction with a fibula free flap, simultaneous dental implantation, and CAD/CAM plates allows early and functional dental rehabilitation. A dental workflow should be integrated into the virtual planning, and prosthetically favourable implant positions should determine the position of the fibula segments.     

Oral rehabilitation with dental implants in oligodontia patients

PURPOSE: The aim of this retrospective report was to evaluate the treatment outcome of oral rehabilitation with dental implants in oligodontia patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirteen oligodontia patients treated with dental implants were examined clinically and radiographically (follow-up 3 +/- 2 years, range 1 to 8 years). In addition, patient-mediated concerns of satisfaction, treatment experience, and level of impairment of oral functions were assessed with questionnaires. RESULTS: In general, all patients were satisfied with the implant treatment and experienced the treatment as nonaggravating. There was significant functional improvement, with an implant survival rate of 86% and 96% for the maxilla and mandible, respectively. CONCLUSION: Dental implants can play an important role in the oral rehabilitation of patients with oligodontia. Patients were generally satisfied with the overall treatment experience and reported significant functional improvement. Implant survival rate was comparable with previous reports.     

Survival of dental implants in irradiated head and neck cancer patients: a retrospective analysis

Purpose: To study the long‐term survival of dental implants placed in irradiated bone in subjects who received radiation for head and neck cancer. Materials and Method: A retrospective chart review was conducted for all patients who received dental implants following radiation treatment for head and neck cancer between May 1, 1987 through July 1, 2008. Only patients irradiated with a radiation dose of 50 Gy or greater and those who received dental implants in the irradiated field after head and neck radiation were included in the study. The associations between implant survival and patient/implant characteristics were estimated by fitting univariate marginal Cox proportional hazards models. Results: A total of 48 patients who had prior head and neck radiation had 271 dental implants placed during May 1987 to July 2008. The estimated survival at 1, 5, and 10 years was 98.9%, 89.9%, and 72.3%, respectively. Implants placed in the maxilla were more likely to fail than implants placed in the mandible (p = .002).There was also a tendency for implants placed in the posterior region to fail compared with those placed in the anterior region (p = .051). Conclusion: Dental implants placed in irradiated bone have a greater risk for failure. Survival is significantly influenced by the location of the implant (maxilla or mandible, anterior or posterior).     

Oral rehabilitation with dental implants after cancer treatment

Background: Patients who undergo surgical management of oral cancer may greatly benefit from an implant‐supported prosthesis. This study reports on the clinical experience of dental implant placement in patients following resection of oral cancer over a 15‐year period. Controversies including the use of dental implants in irradiated tissues, and hyperbaric oxygen treatment will also be discussed. Methods: Thirty‐one patients who had dental implants placed as part of their oral rehabilitation between 1992 and 2007 were investigated. Demographic data and factors including implant survival, type of prosthesis provided, radiotherapy and the hyperbaric oxygen therapy were analysed. Results: In this retrospective study, there was a retention rate of 110 implants from a total of 115 implants placed. A high rate of implant retention was found, with 5 implant failures from a total of 115 implants placed. The 5 failed implants occurred in free flap bone that had been irradiated. Conclusions: Dental implants provide an important role in the oral rehabilitation of oral cancer patients. There may be an increased risk of implant failure in free flap bone that has been irradiated.     

Survival analysis and clinical evaluation of implant-retained prostheses in oral cancer resection patients over a mean follow-up period of 10 years

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Dental implants have been increasingly used for prosthodontic rehabilitation of patients following oral tumor resection and postsurgical radiotherapy. However, only a few long-term studies have examined the implant survival rate and other factors related to prosthodontic treatment in oral tumor resection patients. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the long-term survival of dental implants and implant-retained prostheses in oral cancer resection patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Ninety-three patients (63 men, 30 women) with a mean age of 59 years (range of 26-89 years) received 435 implants after the resection of a head and neck tumor. Twenty-nine patients received postsurgical radiotherapy prior to implant placement. The factors related to implant survival or failure were monitored over a mean observation period of 10.3 years (range of 5 to 161 months). Prosthodontic rehabilitation was evaluated with respect to the rates of technical failures and complications. Data were analyzed using a Kaplan-Meier curve and comparisons were made with the log-rank test or the Wilcoxon test (a=.05). RESULTS: Of the 435 implants, 43 implants were lost; the cumulative survival rate was 92%, 84%, and 69% after 3.5, 8.5, and 13 years, respectively. Twenty-eight implants in 6 patients were counted as lost since the patients had died. Twenty-nine irradiated patients received 124 implants, of which 6 implants were lost prior to prosthodontic rehabilitation. In 68 patients with 78 rigid bar-retained dentures, only minor technical complications were identified. However, all 25 fixed implant-supported restorations had no technical component failures and did not require technical maintenance. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that implant-retained and -supported prostheses in oral cancer resection patients, irrespective of the cancer treatment procedure, show lower long-term survival rates than those in patients without prior cancer surgery. Rigid fixation of the implant-supported prosthesis appears to minimize the complication rates. The poor implant survival rate was due to the higher mortality rate among these patients, and not to a lack of osseointegration.     

Radiotherapy and the survival of dental implants: a systematic review

For patients with head and neck cancer, the effects of treatment with adjuvant radiotherapy can be devastating. Frequently there is loss of function due to tooth loss, pain and discomfort from xerostomia and mucositis, and a significant psychosocial impact. Dental implants provide an effective means of rehabilitation for many, but irradiation poses a unique set of challenges that can affect the outcome of treatment. The aims of this review were to find out whether radiotherapy in these patients affects the survival of dental implants, and to discuss details of pertinent influencing factors. An electronic search of the Medline, Web of Science, and CENTRAL databases was done to identify studies on the survival of implants in irradiated patients within specified inclusion and exclusion criteria. No restriction was placed on the year of publication. The primary outcome measure was implant survival. Seven studies involving 441 participants and 1502 implants placed into irradiated bone were included. Meta-analysis indicated that survival was significantly higher in the mandible compared with the maxilla (p = 0.04), and in non-irradiated cases compared with irradiated cases (p < 0.001). Other factors that showed a strong association with survival were radiation dose and timing of surgery. Implant-based rehabilitation is a viable option for head and neck cancer patients who have undergone radiotherapy. Whilst the short to medium-term implant survival in these cases is high, multiple factors require careful consideration for a favourable outcome. Further high-quality research and randomised controlled trials are required in this field.     

Osseointegrated implants in irradiated bone: a case-controlled study using adjunctive hyperbaric oxygen therapy.

PURPOSE: The current investigation was undertaken to study whether osseointegration of implants in irradiated tissues is subject to a higher failure rate than in nonirradiated tissues. It further aimed to study whether hyperbaric oxygen treatment (HBO) can be used to reduce implant failure. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Seventy-eight cancer patients who were rehabilitated using osseointegrated implants between 1981 and 1997 were investigated. Three groups of patients were compared: irradiated (A), nonirradiated (B), and irradiated and HBO-treated (C). In addition, 10 irradiated patients who had lost most of their implants received new ones after HBO treatment. These were compared as a case-control group. RESULTS: Implant failures were highest in group A (53.7%). Implant failure was 13.5% in group B and 8.1% in group C. The difference between group A and the other two groups was statistically significant (P = .001 to .0023, Mantell's test). HBO significantly improved implant survival in the case-control group from 34 of 43 implants lost to 5 of 42 lost (P = .0078). CONCLUSIONS: Implant insertion in irradiated bone is associated with a higher failure rate. Adjuvant HBO treatment can reduce the failures.     

Oral rehabilitation with dental implants in irradiated patients: a meta-analysis on implant survival

Objectives

The aim of this comprehensive literature review is to provide recommendations and guidelines for dental implant therapy in patients with a history of radiation in the head and neck region. For the first time, a meta-analysis comparing the implant survival in irradiated and non-irradiated patients was performed.

Material and methods

An extensive electronic search in the electronic databases of the National Library of Medicine was conducted for articles published between January 1990 and January 2013 to identify literature presenting survival data on the topic of dental implants in patients receiving radiotherapy for head and neck cancer. Review and meta-analysis were performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses statement. For meta-analysis, only studies with a mean follow-up of at least 5 years were included.

Results

After screening 529 abstracts from the electronic database, we included 31 studies in qualitative and 8 in quantitative synthesis. The mean implant survival rate of all examined studies was 83 % (range, 34–100 %). Meta-analysis of the current literature (2007–2013) revealed no statistically significant difference in implant survival between non-irradiated native bone and irradiated native bone (odds ratio [OR], 1.44; confidence interval [CI], 0.67–3.1). In contrast, meta-analysis of the literature of the years 1990–2006 showed a significant difference in implant survival between non-irradiated and irradiated patients ([OR], 2.12; [CI], 1.69–2.65) with a higher implant survival in the non-irradiated bone. Meta-analysis of the implant survival regarding bone origin indicated a statistically significant higher implant survival in the irradiated native bone compared to the irradiated grafted bone ([OR], 1.82; [CI], 1.14–2.90).

Conclusions

Within the limits of this meta-analytic approach to the literature, this study describes for the first time a comparable implant survival in non-irradiated and irradiated native bone in the current literature. Grafted bone combined with radiotherapy was identified as a negative prognostic factor on implant survival.

Clinical relevance

The evolution of implant hardware and improvement of treatment strategies during the last years have affirmed dental implant-supported concepts as a valuable treatment option for patients with a history of radiation in the head and neck region.     

Medium-term outcome of Astra Tech implants in head and neck oncology patients

Rehabilitation with implant-retained prostheses is a key step in the rehabilitation of patients after ablative head and neck surgery. Data of patients who underwent mandibular restoration with Astra Tech implants were gathered consecutively and analyzed retrospectively. Implant survival was calculated by Kaplan–Meier analysis, and Cox models were used to identify any association between implant failure and contributing factors. In total, 136 implants were placed in 33 patients. The main reason for ablative surgery was squamous cell carcinoma. Twenty-one patients received adjuvant radiotherapy with a cumulative radiation dose of 56–76 Gy prior to implantation. Failure occurred in six patients, resulting in the loss of 17 implants. The cumulative implant survival rate was 92.7% after 1 year and 87.5% after 20 months. Smoking and alcohol consumption were associated with a significantly higher implant failure rate. Most patients had a stable implant status after 20 months.     

Updated Clinical Considerations for Dental Implant Therapy in Irradiated Head and Neck Cancer Patients

An increasing number of reports indicate successful use of dental implants (DI) during oral rehabilitation for head and neck cancer patients undergoing tumor surgery and radiation therapy. Implant‐supported dentures are a viable option when patients cannot use conventional dentures due to adverse effects of radiation therapy, including oral dryness or fragile mucosa, in addition to compromised anatomy; however, negative effects of radiation, including osteoradionecrosis, are well documented in the literature, and early loss of implants in irradiated bone has been reported. There is currently no consensus concerning DI safety or clinical guidelines for their use in irradiated head and neck cancer patients. It is important for health care professionals to be aware of the multidimensional risk factors for these patients when planning oral rehabilitation with DIs, and to provide optimal treatment options and maximize the overall treatment outcome. This paper reviews and updates the impact of radiotherapy on DI survival and discusses clinical considerations for DI therapy in irradiated head and neck cancer patients.     

Immediate implant loading: a case report

The therapeutic goal of implant dentistry is not merely tooth replacement but total oral rehabilitation. Considering dental implants as a treatment option can provide patients with positive, long-term results. Implants have developed into a viable alternative to conventional prosthetic reconstruction of edentulous areas. They provide excellent support for fixed or fixed detachable appliances, which increases function compared with conventional complete dentures. Implant dentistry has gone through many phases over the years. Modern technology and design allows us to predictably place our dental implants in immediate extraction sites and often load the implants at the time of placement. Single tooth-by-tooth reconstruction provides easy access for the patient to floss and clean the areas compared with the relative difficulty in maintenance when crowns are splinted. This case study demonstrates full maxillary and partial mandibular reconstruction using dental implants. The implants were surgically placed immediately after extractions and loaded using a stable roundhouse composite temporary bridge. Following osseointegration, the implants were permanently restored with individual crowns.     

牙种植体—血管化髂骨移植修复下颌骨缺损的临床评价

目的　评价血管化髂骨移植一期植入种植体修复下颌骨缺损的临床效果。方法　采用临床观察、摄X线片 ,并对种植义齿修复后进行咀嚼效率及咬合力测定。结果　种植义齿修复后 ,患者的咀嚼效率可恢复至正常人咀嚼效率的 6 0 7%～ 96 6 % ,说明种植体应用于血管化骨移植修复下颌骨缺损 ,可早期恢复患者的咀嚼功能。结论　种植体应用于血管化骨移植修复下颌骨缺损可早期恢复患者的咀嚼功能     

Long-term success of dental implants in patients with head and neck cancer after radiation therapy

The purpose of this study was to analyze the long-term success and factors potentially influencing the success of dental implants placed in patients with head and neck cancer who underwent radiation therapy with a minimum total dose of 50 Gy during the years 1995–2010. Thirty-five patients (169 dental implants) were included in this study. Data on demographic characteristics, tumour type, radiation therapy, implant sites, implant dimensions, and hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) were obtained from the medical records and analyzed. Implant survival was estimated using Kaplan–Meier survival curves. Seventy-nine dental implants were placed in the maxilla and 90 in the mandible. The mean follow-up after implant installation was 7.4 years (range 0.3–14.7 years). The overall 5-year survival rate for all implants was 92.9%. Sex (P < 0.001) and the mode of radiation therapy delivery (P = 0.005) had a statistically significant influence on implant survival. Age, time of implantation after irradiation, implant brand and dimensions, and HBOT had no statistically significant influence on implant survival. Osseointegrated dental implants can be used successfully in the oral rehabilitation of patients with head and neck cancer with a history of radiation therapy. Risk factors such as sex and the mode of radiation therapy delivery can affect implant survival.     

Comparison of early telescope loading of non-submerged ITI implants in irradiated and non-irradiated oral cancer patients

OBJECTIVE: To compare early dental implant loading in irradiated and non-irradiated oral cancer patients in order to accelerate masticatory function improvement and quality of life. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred and fourteen non-submerged interforaminal ITI implants were early loaded in 30 patients after 3 weeks in situ (telescoped overdenture). Nineteen patients received 72 implants (63%) after local irradiation; 11 non-irradiated patients received 42 implants (37%) with a 24-month follow-up. RESULTS: At 24 month follow-up, one early failure had occurred in an irradiated patient (=99% functioning implants in situ). Peri-implant bleeding and plaque index were similarly high in both groups (40 to 68% average).The Results of other measured parameters were as follows (values for mean; irradiated; non-irradiated patients with respective standard deviations; significance of comparison): bone loss (0.9+/-0.9; 1.4+/-0.9; 0.4+/-0.5 mM; P<0.01); Periotest score (-2.7+/-2.7; -2.4+/-2.2; -3.1+/-3.3; P<0.2); gingival recession (0.6+/-0.7 mM; 0.8+/-0.9 mM; 0.4+/-0.5 mM, P<0.02); and peri-implant probing depths (3+/-1.2; 2.6+/-0.6; 3.4+/-1.7 mM; P<0.002). CONCLUSION: The results suggest reliable non-submerged implantation and early loading. However, bone loss in irradiated mandibles, combined with higher average Periotest values and gingival recession in an oral environment of altered saliva quantity, quality, microflora and local scarring, requires extended follow-up.     

Post-academic dental specialties 17. Implant-retained craniofacial prostheses

The surgical and prosthetic aftercare of craniofacial prostheses supported by endosseous implants were registered in patients treated with implant-retained craniofacial prostheses in a university clinic during the last two decades. Aftercare was registered during the period from implant placement until the last follow-up visit. Implant survival rate was 95.2% in non-irradiated and 78.8% in irradiated bone. Discoloration of the silicon material, becoming loose of the acrylic clip carrier from the silicone, rupture of the silicone, and ill-fitting of the prosthesis were main reasons for fabrication of a new craniofacial prosthesis.     

Dental implants in reconstructed jaws: implant longevity and peri-implant tissue outcomes.

PURPOSE: The study aimed to evaluate the clinical status and survival of dental implants inserted in reconstructed jaws, with particular reference to the peri-implant tissues. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a clinical follow-up study based on 29 rehabilitated patients after oral tumor surgery, who received autogenous bone grafts from the ilium and endosseous implants (14 maxillary and 15 mandibular cases; 140 implants) for functional jaw reconstruction between 1988 and 1999. Clinical records of the patients were reviewed retrospectively. Clinical parameters of plaque index, probing pocket depth, and bleeding on probing were assessed around the implants and control teeth at 4 locations (mesiobuccal, distobuccal, mesiolingual, and distolingual). Implant mobility was assessed clinically and objectively using a Periotest (Gulden; Siemens, Bensheim, Germany) equipment for those implants supporting removable prostheses. Radiographically, the proportion of implant length remained osseointegrated was measured. RESULTS: With a mean follow-up time of 50 months, 90.7% of the 140 implants placed were functional in supporting dental prostheses; 4.3% of implants failed in osseointegration and the remaining 5.0% implants were osseointegrated but nonfunctional. A total of 493 sites of 127 functional implants and 392 sites of 98 control teeth were assessed. No significant difference was found between the implants and control teeth parameters, except on the probing pocket depth. The mean peri-implant probing depth was 3.5 mm, and 52.7% of the measured sites were 3 mm or less. More than one third of the implants (35.9%) presented with increased probing depth (> or =4 mm), and this was significantly higher than in the control teeth (P <.001, chi(2) test). Bleeding on probing was found in 19.3% of the measured peri-implant sites, corresponding to 42.2% of the dental implants. Of the implants, 28.9% were completely free from plaque and 9.4% show visible plaque accumulation. Mobility assessment was feasible on 32 implants and no mobility was detected. Radiographically, the mean implant length remained in bone was 81.1%, with 82.6% in the maxilla and 79.4% in the mandible. Implant survival rate calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method was 86.9% for 5 years. Based on the defined criteria, the success rate of implants placed in reconstructed jaws in this study was 90.7%. CONCLUSION: Endosseous implants can be successfully placed in reconstructed jaws for oral rehabilitation with maintenance of reasonable health status of the peri-implant tissues in the long-term.     

Thinned-out skin paddle versus collagen matrix as an optimized peri-implant soft tissue following fibula osteoseptocutaneous free flap: 3-year retrospective study

The objective of this study was to compare the implant longevity following two methods of peri-implant soft tissue optimization following free fibula flap (FFF): thinning of skin paddle (SP) and collagen matrix (CM). All patients who underwent rehabilitation with dental implants after mandibular reconstruction with FFF between June 2009 to May 2014 were retrospectively reviewed. Two methods of peri-implant soft tissue optimization were applied: (1) SP group, (2) CM group. Outcome measurements were: modified plaque index (mPI), modified sulcus bleeding index (mSBI), probing depth (PD), marginal bone loss (MBL), implant success rate and complication rates. A total of 24 patients with 69 implants were included in the study, with 8.7% (n = 6) of implants lost in 3 years. No statistically significant difference was found regarding the outcome measurements in both groups. Failed implants presented with statistically significant higher mPI, mSBI, PD and MBL scores during prosthesis delivery and subsequent follow-ups (P<0.03). In the SP group, one patient experienced SP necrosis which later underwent soft tissue optimization using CM. CM is an alternative peri-implant soft tissue, while thinning of SP is feasible if thickness is well controlled.