Crestal Incision Vs Plus Incision In Healing Of Gingival Collar In Second Stage Implant Surgery: A Comparative Study
Keywords:
papilla, incision, implantAbstract
Aim: To compare the effectiveness of crestal incision versus plus (+) incision techniques in the healing of the gingival collar during second-stage dental implant surgery, with particular focus on soft tissue contour, gingival health, and esthetic outcome.
Materials and methods: A retrospective study was conducted to evaluate the impact of different incision techniques on gingival papilla height around single implants in the esthetic zone. The study included 50 patients (25 males, 25 females) aged 19–60 years. Papillae that met the strict inclusion criteria, which required healthy, functioning implants adjacent to natural teeth, thick gingival biotype (>1 mm), appropriate spacing (2.5–4 mm), and consistent surgical execution by a single operator. Patients with systemic diseases, poor implant positioning, active oral inflammation, smoking habits, or oral parafunctions were excluded. Data analysis was done using SSPS software.
Results: In this study, a total of 50 patients were equally divided into two groups to compare the effects of crestal and plus incision techniques during second-stage implant surgery. The demographic and clinical characteristics were comparable between the two groups. The mean age in Group A (Crestal Incision) was 38.7 ± 10.4 years, while in Group B (Plus Incision) it was 39.2 ± 11.1 years. Gender distribution was similar, with 14 males and 11 females in Group A, and 13 males and 12 females in Group B. The implant placement locations were nearly balanced, with 16 maxillary and 9 mandibular implants in Group A and 15 maxillary and 10 mandibular in Group B. A majority of patients in both groups had a thick gingival biotype (17 in Group A and 18 in Group B). The mean duration since implant placement was also similar between the groups, being 7.2 ± 1.1 months in Group A and 7.4 ± 1.3 months in Group B.
Conclusion: The plus incision technique in second-stage implant surgery showed better soft tissue healing and papilla preservation than the crestal incision, though further research with larger sample sizes is needed to confirm these findings.
Downloads
References
Fickl S, Fischer KR, Negri B, Ruíz RD, Calvo-Guirado JL, Kebschull M, et al. Tissue response following papilla-sparing and sulcular incisions in oral surgery–an experimental study. Clin Oral Investig. 2014;18:1313–1317. doi: 10.1007/s00784-013-1069-1.
Anumala D, Haritha M, Sailaja S, Prasuna E, Sravanthi G, Reddy N. Effect of flap and flapless implant surgical techniques on soft and hard tissue profile in single-stage dental implants. J Orofac Sci. 2019;11:1. doi: 10.4103/jofs.jofs_127_18.
Girbés-Ballester P, Viña-Almunia J, Peñarrocha-Oltra D, Peñarrocha-Diago M. Soft tissue response in posterior teeth adjacent to interdental single implants: a controlled randomized clinical trial comparing intrasulcular vs trapezoidal incision. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2016;31:631–641. doi: 10.11607/jomi.4178.
Tettamanti S, Millen C, Gavric J, Buser D, Belser UC, Brägger U, et al. Esthetic evaluation of implant crowns and peri-implant soft tissue in the anterior maxilla: comparison and reproducibility of three different indices. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2016;18:517–526. doi: 10.1111/cid.12306.
Lee DW, Park KH, Moon IS. Dimension of keratinized mucosaand the interproximal papilla between adjacent implants. J Periodontol. 2005;76:1856–60. doi: 10.1902/jop.2005.76.11.1856.
Nisapakultorn K, Suphanantachat S, Silkosessak O, Rattanamongkolgul S. Factors affecting soft tissue level aroundanterior maxillary single tooth implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010;21:662–70. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01887.x.
Garber D, Belser U. Restoration-driven implant placement with restoration-generated site development. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 1995;16:796–804.
Jemt T. Regeneration of gingival papillae after single implant treatment. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 1997;17:326–33.
Luo C, Chen M. Do different incision techniques for implant surgery affect gingival papilla height around dental implants? A retrospective study of 115 cases. BMC Oral Health. 2023 Mar 8;23(1):128. doi: 10.1186/s12903-023-02828-z. PMID: 36890532; PMCID: PMC9996942.A
Bin Mohsin AH, Sheethi KV, Priyanka M, Karre D, Ahmed MQ. Regenerative surgical flap to maintain interdental papilla around dental implant. Int J Appl Basic Med Res. 2019;9:188–190.
Parihar AS, Manas A, Gopinath PV, Moin Ahmed M, Ibrahim Mathar M, Chauhan M, Bhuvaneshwari S. A Comparative Study of Mid-Crestal Incision and Diode Laser Shaped Incision to Assess Papilla Level in Second Stage Dental Implant Surgery. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2022 Jul;14(Suppl 1):S236-S238. doi: 10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_115_22. Epub 2022 Jul 13. PMID: 36110672; PMCID: PMC9469255.
Kamakshi LNVA, Uppoor AS, Nayak DG, Pralhad S. Evaluation of papilla levels following three different techniques for the second stage of implants - A clinical and radiographic study. J Indian Soc Periodontol. 2021 Mar-Apr;25(2):120-127. doi: 10.4103/jisp.jisp_60_20. Epub 2021 Mar 1. Erratum in: J Indian Soc Periodontol. 2021 May-Jun;25(3):270. doi: 10.4103/0972-124X.315467. PMID: 33888943; PMCID: PMC8041085.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
Terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
