The long-term efficacy of adequate keratinized mucosa (>2 mm) in dental implants is controversial. Peri-implant plastic surgeries are currently used because they increase keratinized mucosa width (KMW), helping to regain peri-implant health and maintaining it over the long-term. We present the clinical findings using free-gingival-graft (FGG) and free-periosteal-graft (FPG) techniques in peri-implant plastic surgery for implant rehabilitation patients. We included 20 patients with implant indications of inadequate KMW (KMW < 2 mm for postimplantation) in the maxilla and mandible. All underwent clinical and radiographic measurements and a treatment protocol was prepared for implant rehabilitation and subsequent peri-implant plastic surgery. A decision as to whether and when FGG or FPG techniques would be used was made. FGG/FPG was performed pre-implantation (before monocortical block-bone augmentation) or postimplantation (before/during/after stage 2 surgery). KMW was ≥ 2 mm after application of FGG/FPG pre- or post-implantation. Moreover, peri-implant tissue health was regained/maintained in all cases from 6 months to 4 years. Peri-implant plastic surgery techniques can prevent hard- and soft-tissue problems after implant rehabilitation and during treatment of developing problems. However, surgical design and timing, and an interdisciplinary perspective determine the success of peri-implant plastic surgery.

Introduction

Scientific developments in dental implantology have gradually improved both the success rate and the ability to meet patient expectations. Dental implant rehabilitation is no longer confined to restoration of mastication and phonetic function. The attainment of “ideal” treatment results with structural and aesthetic “regeneration” of edentulous areas is an important goal in modern implant dentistry.1,2  The long-term functional and aesthetic success of dental implants depends on a balance between hard structures and soft tissues. Thus, peri-implant health should be considered important in resistance against mechanical forces, and bacterial plaque and also mucosal stress must be eliminated.14 

For ideal dental implant rehabilitation, an adequate bone volume, optimal implant position, aesthetic soft tissue contours, and stable and healthy soft tissue are required.1,5  In particular, soft-tissue defects, such as gingival and connective tissue, play crucial roles in long-term implant success.24  Periodontal plastic surgery techniques are now routine treatments for various soft-tissue defects. The peri-implant plastic surgery concept has been proposed due to the adaptation of these techniques to dental implantology; this is also known as peri-implant soft tissue management/augmentation.”13,6 

Peri-implant plastic surgery approaches facilitate the development of healthy peri-implant structures that are able to withstand occlusal forces and mucogingival stress, while providing satisfactory aesthetic results in both soft and hard tissues.1,2  The treatment of hard structure and soft-tissue problems that arise post-implantation is another important goal of peri-implant plastic surgery.13  Peri-implant plastic surgery enables the creation of the peri-implant keratinized mucosa (KM).2  KM comprises of dense, collagen-rich connective tissue, lined by a keratinising epithelium. No free elastic fibers are found in the connective tissue, and the lamina propria is firmly and directly attached to the bone periosteum.4 

Whether the presence of a KM zone around dental implants is required for peri-implant health is controversial.4,7,8  While significantly higher plaque913  and bleeding scores 1015  and more soft-tissue recession in the early phase (6–12 months after prosthesis)12,16  have been reported in regions with inadequate KM width (KMW, <2 mm), other researchers reported the opposite.4,7  Moreover, although interproximal bone level12  and implant loss17  were not detected in such cases, these evaluations could not be completely assessed due to methodological limitations. Therefore, even though no significant association was found between KM existence/nonexistence and peri-implant health, the establishment or maintenance of an adequate zone of peri-implant KM is thought to be necessary.4,715 

The evidence that grafting procedures aimed at increasing the amount of KM improve implant therapy outcomes is lacking.3,4,6,18,19  Techniques to maintain adequate KM around 2-stage implants have been suggested.3  During implant exposure, apically positioned flaps (APF) or laterally postioned flaps (LPF) and free gingival grafts (FGG) are commonly used to increase KM.3,20,21  The surgical approach used most frequently is APF plus autogenous graft application (APF–AG), harvested from the palatal mucosa.3,19,22,23  Performance of these techniques to prevent or treat peri-implant health issues have been suggested, but whether they should be performed pre- or postimplantation remains unknown.1,3,6,19 

In this study, we present long-term clinical findings of increasing KMW in a case series of patients undergoing dental implant rehabilitation using the FGG and free periosteal graft (FPG).

Materials and Methods

Study groups

We included 20 patients (6 males, 14 females, aged 23–65) undergoing 2-stage implantation at Karadeniz Technical University, Faculty of Dentistry, Periodontology Department, between January 2008 and January 2012. All patients had ≥ 1 tooth loss in the maxilla or mandible, due to root fractures, caries, endodontic lesions, or periodontal disease. Peri-implant plastic surgical approaches were applied as follows: pre-implant (based on fixed prosthesis planning, before monocortical block bone augmentation), postimplant (based on fixed prosthesis or over-denture prosthesis planning, before/during/after stage 2 surgery).

Inclusion criteria

  • (1)

    For peri-implant plastic surgery in patients with pre-implant monocortical block bone augmentation, KMW was < bone defect height + bone defect width.

  • (2)

    For those who underwent peri-implant plastic surgery after implantation, KMW was < 2 mm.

  • (3)

    No systemic disease that could influence the outcome of implant or peri-implant plastic surgery (eg, uncontrolled diabetes (HbA1c <7), osteoporosis, bisphosphonate medication, coagulation disorders).

  • (4)

    Nonsmoker or light smoker (<5 cigarettes per day).

  • (5)

    Treated chronic periodontitis and proper periodontal maintenance care.

  • (6)

    Good oral hygiene (plaque index [PI] <1).24 

The protocol was consistent with the Helsinki Declaration. Each patient was given a detailed description of therapies and provided informed consent.

Peri-implant plastic surgery protocols

All patients had clinical and radiographic (periapical and panoramic radiography, dental computerized tomography [CT]) measurements and a treatment protocol was prepared for implant rehabilitation, and subsequent peri-implant plastic surgery. According to the protocol, a decision about which technique (FGG/FPG) and when they would be used was made. In cases with early peri-implant bone resorption/peri-implantitis, KMW was increased; in the meantime, FPG was used to facilitate regeneration, due to its denser cell content. FGG was used only in cases of peri-implant health/peri-implant mucositis with inadequate KMW. Preventive peri-implant plastic surgical approaches were performed averagely 2 months before the stage surgery, during and after the stage 2 surgery. The application period of peri-implant plastic surgeries for treatment was meanly 2 months following stage 2 surgery. Prior to surgeries, if needed, nonsurgical treatment was performed along with antimicrobials. The surgeries were performed after the lesion was resolved.25  Demographic data of the patients and treatment protocols related to peri-implant plastic surgical approaches are given in Table 1.

Table 1

Demographic data of all patients and treatment protocols associated with peri-implant plastic surgery approaches

Demographic data of all patients and treatment protocols associated with peri-implant plastic surgery approaches
Demographic data of all patients and treatment protocols associated with peri-implant plastic surgery approaches

KMW and peri-implant clinical measurements

All the clinical parameters are measured for peri-implant plastic surgery regions and for other implant regions on which no peri-implant plastic surgery process will be applied. The KMW was evaluated baseline and 6 months later. Pre-stage 2 surgery KMW was measured from the mucogingival junction (MGJ) to the top of the alveolar crest. Post-stage 2 surgery KMW at the mid-buccal point was measured from MGJ to the free gingival margin.9  Other peri-implant clinical parameters were measured baseline and 6 months later in post-stage 2 surgery patients, because the implants were not exposed. The measurements in the remaining patients were conducted only at 6 months: (1) probing depth (PD), measured from the mucosal margin to the bottom of the probable pocket; (2) bleeding on probing (BOP);26  (3) PI;24  (4) mucosal recession (MR), measured from the implant shoulder/restoration margin to the mucosal margin. PD was recorded at 6 sites (mesiobuccal, midbuccal, distobuccal, mesiolingual/palatal, distolingual/palatal, and midlingual/palatal) using a periodontal probe (Michigan O Color-Coded Probe, Hu-Friedy, Chicago, Ill). PI was measured at 4 sites (midmesial, midbuccal, mid-distal, and midlingual/palatal). MR was reported from mesial, distal, and buccal of each implant. The probe was placed as parallel as possible to the long axis of the implant, without causing damage to the region. Clinical parameters were recorded for each dental implant by the same calibrated periodontist (E.B.). The patients were monitored postoperatively for 6 months to 4-year intervals depending on the case. Table 2 shows implant data and clinical and radiographic measurements appropriate to the peri-implant plastic surgery treatment protocol.

Table 2

Comparison of clinical and radiographic measurements and implant data of all patients

Comparison of clinical and radiographic measurements and implant data of all patients
Comparison of clinical and radiographic measurements and implant data of all patients

Clinical diagnosis of peri-implant tissue destruction

Peri-implant mucositis was defined as the presence of peri-implant BOP, while peri-implantitis was defined as the presence of PD ≥ 5 mm in association with peri-implant BOP and/or pus, and with loss of supporting bone.2729  On the other hand, early peri-implant bone resorption not associated with clinical findings of peri-implantitis was also seen in some of our cases. Early peri-implant bone resorption can be caused by remodeling, which may be unrelated to infection and is not necessarily periimplantitis.30  In those cases, diagnosis was made during radiographic investigations or plastic surgical procedures.

Peri-implant procedures

In both techniques, for donor site preparation, horizontal incisions were made in the implant area and the area was made visible. Vertical bone height (VBH) in the area was crucial for vertical incisions. Flaps were positioned apically following vertical incisions in areas with adequate VBH; a vestibuloplasty was performed in atrophic areas. Grafts were obtained from the hard palate. While FGG consists of keratinized epithelium in the palatal region, FPG includes periosteum and some connective tissue in that area.

FGG/FPG procedure

Free gingival graft procedure was performed according to the technique described by Newman and colleagues.31  During FPG application, granulation tissue in the defect area was removed using an Er, Cr: YSGG Laser (Waterlase MD, Turbo, Calif; Biolase Technology, San Clemente, Calif) and cotton pellets soaked in sterile saline. The FPG was then placed. Briefly, after application of local anesthesia, a linear incision was made 1.5–2 mm from the palatal gingival margin. From this incision, a split-thickness envelope flap was partially raised, creating a ~10-mm-deep pouch in the palatal thickness. Inside the pouch, 4 incisions (mesial, distal, coronal, apical) were made deeper through the bone. Connective tissue with periosteum was obtained using a periosteal elevator (Figure 1). The donor site was closed with 3–0 silk cross-mattress sutures. The FPG were then shaped according to the receiving area and reduced to a 2- to 2.5-mm thickness. The periosteal side of the connective tissue was positioned facing the osseous and implant surface of the receiving area.32 

Figures 1 and 2.

Figure 1. (a, b, c) Obtaining a free periosteal graft in the palatal area. Figure 2. FGG application to the left posterior mandibular area prior to stage 2 surgery. (a) Clinical view prior to FGG. (b,c) FGG and FGG operation. (d) 12 months after FGG.

Figures 1 and 2.

Figure 1. (a, b, c) Obtaining a free periosteal graft in the palatal area. Figure 2. FGG application to the left posterior mandibular area prior to stage 2 surgery. (a) Clinical view prior to FGG. (b,c) FGG and FGG operation. (d) 12 months after FGG.

Pre-implant peri-implant procedures

KMW Increase via FGG Prior to Monocortical Block-bone Augmentation

The implant site in 2 patients had a shallow vestibule due to inflammation and a horizontal bone defect prior to implantation. FGG was suitable, with subsequent monocortical block augmentation. To increase pre-implant KMW, the FGG technique was used. FGG was also used to cover the block bone graft completely and enhance healing. Thus the implant site was prepared for augmentation by applying the FGG graft. The site to which the block bone augmentation would be applied was prepared by making a horizontal incision from the mucogingival junction line. The FGG obtained from the hard palate was placed in this site. Three weeks later, the vestibular depth was adequate. KM, which would completely cover the monocortical block-bone graft, was formed simultaneously.

Postimplant peri-implant procedures

These surgeries were used for KMW increasing/peri-implantitis treatment and were performed before/during/after stage 2 surgery.

Increasing KMW via FGG/FPG With Fixed Prosthesis

In these procedures, criteria such as VBH, number of implants, and muscle hyperactivity (high muscle attachment, HMA) were of high importance in the timing. All surgeries were performed in cases with atrophic/sufficient VBH and (+/−) HMA. The following criteria were important for surgical timing. When the number of implants was ≥ 2 and HMA (+), surgical procedures were performed before or during stage 2 in order to avoid any surgical complication that might develop due to insufficient KMW (such as rupture of flap due to stretching) or to prevent development of peri-implant mucositis/peri-implantitis. In FGG applications prior to stage 2 surgery the implant number was ≥ 2 and HMA was (+) (Figure 2). In FGG applications during stage 2 surgery, implant number was ≥ 2 and HMA was (+). In cases 6 and 7, implants were placed into the posterior atrophic mandible, and FGG was applied with implant abutment. In these cases, while donor area had been prepared, gingiva between the implants was preserved via a semilunar incision (Figure 3). In FGG/FPG applications following stage 2 surgery, surgical procedures were performed for protective purposes or peri-implant mocositis/peri-implantitis treatment. In those applications with a protective purpose, FGG was usually performed. Also in that group, FGG was used when the implant number in the surgical area was ≥ 3. Details regarding the timing of cases were shown in Tables 1 and 2.

Figure 3.

FGG application to the right posterior mandibular area with implant abutment during stage 2 surgery. (a) Radiographic appearance. (b) Clinical view prior to FGG. (c) Incision borderline. (d) Semilunar incision. (e) Immediately after FGG operation. (f) 6 months after FGG.

Figure 3.

FGG application to the right posterior mandibular area with implant abutment during stage 2 surgery. (a) Radiographic appearance. (b) Clinical view prior to FGG. (c) Incision borderline. (d) Semilunar incision. (e) Immediately after FGG operation. (f) 6 months after FGG.

Increasing KMW via FPG With an Overdenture Prosthesis

Due to the posterior atrophic mandibles in 2 cases in this treatment group, implants were placed into the basal mandible and anterior regions. Despite the KMW <1 mm following stage 2 surgery, because the mental foramina was almost at the top of the crest, considering complications, patients were followed for some time and then peri-implantitis plastic surgery was decided on when peri-implantitis began (Figure 4).

Figure 4.

FPG application to the right anterior mandibular area following stage 2 surgery. (a) Radiographic appearance. (b) Clinical view prior to FPG (peri-implantitis and shallow vestibule). (c,d) FGG operation (cleaning of granulation tissues with an Er,Cr:YSGG laser). (e) 6 months after FPG.

Figure 4.

FPG application to the right anterior mandibular area following stage 2 surgery. (a) Radiographic appearance. (b) Clinical view prior to FPG (peri-implantitis and shallow vestibule). (c,d) FGG operation (cleaning of granulation tissues with an Er,Cr:YSGG laser). (e) 6 months after FPG.

All surgical procedures were performed by the same experienced surgeon (E.B.) who was informed of the procedure only at the time of the surgical intervention. Sutures (5.0-trofilen monofilament; polyvinylidene fluoride) were used.

Postoperative care

Systemic antibiotics (amoxicillin + clavulanic acid, 2 × 1000 mg/d) were administered peri- (1 hour before) and postoperatively for 5 days for transmucosal healing. Postoperative care consisted of rinsing with 0.2% chlorhexidine digluconate twice daily (60 seconds each) for 2 weeks without tooth brushing at the surgical site. Sutures were removed roughly 10–14 days after surgery. To control oral hygiene and wound healing, recall appointments were scheduled every second week during the first 2 months and then monthly during the observation period.

Statistical analysis

To evaluate any differences between baseline and sixth month KMW's in peri-implant plastic surgery group, Wilcoxon signed rank test was used. All statistical analyses were performed with SPSS Graduate Package 15.0 (SPSS Inc, Chicago, Ill). A value of P < 0.05 was accepted as indicating statistical significance.

Results

In this study, 86 rough-surface implants were used; KMW was increased via pre- and post-implantation FGG/FPG application in 41 implants in 20 patients. The other 45 rough-surface implants on which FGG/FPG was not applied due to sufficient KMW (≥2 mm) were accepted as the control group. The implant numbers used and clinical parameters of the peri-implant hard and soft tissue are given in Table 2.

In peri-implant plastic surgery group, while FGG was used in 2 areas in case 10, in other patients peri-implant plastic surgery was applied only to the peri-implant area. No complications were evident, and uneventful recoveries occurred within 3 weeks. Pre-implant, in cases in which KMW was increased via FGG, KMW increased by 7 mm on average in both cases. At the third month following FGG, block bone augmentation was performed, and treatment was completed with implant surgery and a fixed prosthesis. KMW was ≥ 2 mm following FGG/FPG techniques applied after implantation. KMW increases in cases with adequate VBH and HMA (−) were higher than those with inadequate VBH and HMA (+). Besides, in the overdenture cases in which FPG technique is used, we obtained KM approximately 2 mm in width, rich with collagen fibers, and healthy. Peri-implant tissue health was regained in patients by year 2. Therefore, peri-implant tissue health was regained/maintained in all cases within 6 months to 4 years. Peri-implant pockets were eliminated. As a result, presurgery (baseline) KMW was < 2 mm and postsurgery (6 months), KMW was ≥ 2 mm (P < 0.05; Table 3).

Table 3

Comparison of baseline and 6 month KMW's in peri-implant plastic surgery region of all patients

Comparison of baseline and 6 month KMW's in peri-implant plastic surgery region of all patients
Comparison of baseline and 6 month KMW's in peri-implant plastic surgery region of all patients

In the control group, peri-implant tissue health was also preserved between 6 months and 4 years.

Discussion

Although the need for KM remains controversial in the long-term success of dental implants, peri-implant soft tissue management, or peri-implant plastic surgery, is considered essential by clinicians.3  However, little, if any, data regarding the overall success and longevity of these techniques from well-controlled, long-term studies has been published. Moreover, there is no consensus regarding the timing of application of these techniques.1  In this case series, peri-implant plastic surgery procedures to increase KMW were discussed with cases; an original perspective was provided in terms of techniques and timing. Adequate KM (>2 mm) was obtained in all cases. Soft and hard tissue defects due to KM insufficiency could be treated using these techniques. In addition, the preservation of peri-implant tissue health in other dental implants, on which FGG/FPG was not applied due to sufficient KMW, emphasized the significance of KMW once again.

Because there is no consensus on peri-implant plastic surgery techniques, the decision about the techniques to be applied depends on the clinician's choice and the planned surgical and prosthetic treatment.4,6,19  Although the essential goal of the FGG/FPG techniques was to increase KMW in this study, differences between treatment protocols in implant rehabilitation and clinician choices determine the technique(s) used. The FGG technique was used to increase KMW in pre- and post-implant situations. This is a periodontal plastic surgery procedure used to increase inadequate attached gingival width and to cover exposed root surfaces.31  Although FGG is among the earliest techniques for increasing peri-implant KMW, the long-term clinical data are limited.3,4,19  Also, both free and pedicle autogenous periosteal grafts are modern approaches with clinically proven superiority in intra-osseous barrier membrane, or gingival recession defects in regenerative and plastic periodontal surgery.32  The periosteum is highly vascular and contains fibroblasts, osteoblasts and their progenitor cells, and stem cells.33  Moreover, FPG may facilitate the stimulation of new bone formation.32  Because the periosteum has high regenerative potential, contains collagen fibers, and maintains osteoblastic activation, FPG was used following implantation in peri-implantitis cases with adequate KM. Because of these characteristics of FPG, it increased the soft tissue volume more than FGG did.

Although there is no report of clinical findings with FPG, the clinical findings of FGG and free connective tissue graft (FCG) techniques have been investigated.3437  FCGs may be preferable due to the less invasive palatal wound, resulting in less donor site morbidity and improved aesthetic results, due to better color matching.35  Additionally, following FGG 25% shrinkage was seen on average in 4 years, whereas 40% shrinkage was seen with FCG in 1 year.34,35  We also detected color changes in the cases that underwent FGG. Because the clinical results of FPG in peri-implant plastic surgery are unknown, to decrease the possibility of complications FGG was performed in cases where we planned to increase KMW in a wide area. Also, because FPG quality and quantity in the donor site vary among individuals, obtaining adequate FPG may be difficult. For those reasons, unless absolutely necessary, ie, if peri-implantitis treatment is not required, KMW is best increased by the FGG technique. Moreover, in this study manual periodontal probe was used in clinical peri-implant parameter measurements. These probes were used in similar studies in measuring peri-implant clinical parameters.14,21 

Based on variability in the cases, peri-implant plastic surgery is appropriate in the pre-implant placement, stage 1 and 2 surgeries and postprosthetic periods.13,6,19  Similarly, while the timing of surgical procedures to increase KMW is unknown, reports show it can be performed mostly during the stage 2 surgery or postprosthetic treatment periods.3,6  Because the soft and hard tissue dimensions in the implant area are not standardized, and surgical treatment planning varies by case, we formed various treatment groups and surgical timing was determined according to indication. The techniques were investigated pre- and post-implantation. The modified approaches presented here provide a perspective for cases similar to ours.

To increase pre-implant KMW, the FGG technique was used. During this period, FGG was also used to cover the block bone graft completely and enhance healing. Thus the implant site was prepared for augmentation by applying the FGG graft. At the third month following FGG, block bone augmentation was performed, and treatment was completed with implant surgery and a fixed prosthesis. During follow-ups for up to 4 years after FGG, peri-implant soft and hard tissue health was maintained and KMW was adequate. This method is an alternative to the controlled tissue expansion technique;38  peri-implant tissue health benefitted by increasing KMW. Therefore, the ideal indication for pre-implant peri-implant surgical application is an augmentation model similar to our cases.

The FGG technique used prior to postimplant stage 2 surgery may be thought not to be inappropriate because an additional procedure is required. However, because the implants were positioned in the buccal area for prosthetic reasons and HMA (+) and/or implant number was ≥ 2, the implants were not exposed and stage 2 surgery was delayed to 2 months after the FGG. Indeed, it has been reported that peri-implant KMW augmentation is affected by implant location, and obtaining a wide keratinized tissue band in the posterior implant region with HMA is problematic, especially with a shallow vestibule.37 

When FGG was used during postimplant stage 2, to eliminate the possibility of a second surgery, FGG was applied following placement of the implant abutment or cover screw. In these cases, the minimal keratinized tissue present was not excised during implant exposure; it was moved with semilunar incisions and sutured with the FGG. This method represents a modified FGG technique as a combination of the papilla regeneration2  and FGG techniques. The compliance between implant and soft tissue was better, despite the difficulty of the procedure. The approximate aesthetic was better maintained using semilunar incisions. In these cases with HMA (+) in the posterior region and a shallow vestibule, KMW was adequate following prosthesis placement. Manipulation of soft tissue adjacent to implants enables peri-implant tissue healing.2 

Although the findings of the effects of the inadequacy of KMW in peri-implant tissue health are controversial, and the association of this condition with peri-implantitis is uncertain, in the presence of insufficient KM, the proposal that increased plaque accumulation and mucosal inflammation cause peri-implantitis is more than just a hypothesis.4  We also observed early peri-implantitis, characterized with PD and/or pus, in cases 17–20. Moreover, we observed early peri-implant bone resorption in cases 13–16. In these, we both increased KMW and applied a periosteal graft for PD treatment. The clinical findings were encouraging. While PD was eliminated, KMW was adequate at 6 months. Although there was no significant hard-tissue problem, similar clinical success was achieved in cases in which FGG was applied for prevention following stage 2. In case 10, positive results of other procedures encouraged us to go one step further in surgery. Poststage 2 FGG applications were also performed in regions with implant numbers ≥3.

Using the FPG technique, the most beneficial results were with an over-denture prosthesis. In severe atrophic mandibles, inadequate KMW emerged as a more important problem in implant regions completely within the mandible. In addition to muscle-related stress, this region could not be cleaned well, and the implant level was almost at the same level as the floor of the mouth due to severe atrophy, which can make solutions in peri-implant plastic surgery near impossible. FPG may be an option in such cases. We obtained healthy KM approximately 2 mm in width, and rich with collagen fibers. Peri-implant tissue health was regained in patients by year 2. Indeed, ensuring that a keratinized tissue border exists at the implant-soft tissue interface facilitates tight tissue adaptation and a marginal seal at the implant surface and provides a connective tissue circumferential fiber system that resists mechanical stress and facilitates oral hygiene procedures.1 

We presented our experience of specific cases of peri-implant plastic surgery techniques to increase inadequate KMW. KMW (≥2 mm) was adequate in all cases after FGG/FPG techniques. Peri-implant tissue health was maintained/regained. Because the cases were not standardized, the techniques used were modified case by case. Thus, although this was a long-term study, we present it as a case series. Although no general treatment protocol for peri-implant plastic surgery is available, these findings are promising. The techniques performed and their modification, based on purpose or local factors, may facilitate further clinical studies. The FPG technique should be used in peri-implantitis, representing an alternative for peri-implant plastic surgery. However, further studies of FPG are warranted. Our data suggest that the priority for successful peri-implant plastic surgery is successful phase 1 periodontal treatment. While deciding the peri-implant plastic surgery treatment protocol, phase 1 peri-implant treatment should be discussed. Moreover, for successful peri-implant surgery, appropriate techniques, accurate timing, and clinical experience are crucial.

Abbreviations

     
  • APF

    apically positioned flaps

  •  
  • APF-AG

    APF plus autogenous graft application

  •  
  • BOP

    bleeding on probing

  •  
  • CT

    computerized tomography

  •  
  • FGG

    free-gingival-graft

  •  
  • FPG

    free-periosteal-graft

  •  
  • HMA

    high muscle attachment

  •  
  • KM

    keratinized mucosa

  •  
  • KMW

    keratinized mucosa width

  •  
  • LPF

    laterally positioned flaps

  •  
  • MGJ

    mucogingival junction

  •  
  • MR

    mucosal recession

  •  
  • PD

    probing depth

  •  
  • PI

    plaque index

  •  
  • VBH

    vertical bone height

References

References
1
Kazor
CE
,
Al-Shammari
K
,
Sarment
DP
,
Misch
CE
,
Wang
HL.
Implant plastic surgery: a review and rationale
.
J Oral Implantol
.
2004
;
30
:
240
254
.
2
Palacci
P
,
Nowzari
H.
Soft tissue enhancement around dental implants
.
Periodontol 2000
.
2008
;
47
:
113
132
.
3
Cairo
F
,
Pagliaro
U
,
Nieri
M.
Soft tissue management at implant sites
.
J Clin Periodontol
.
2008
;
35
(
8 Suppl
):
163
167
.
4
Wennström
JL
,
Derks
J.
Is there a need for keratinized mucosa around implants to maintain health and tissue stability?
Clin Oral Implants Res
.
2012
;
23
(
Suppl 6
):
136
146
.
5
Jovanovic
SA.
Bone rehabilitation to achieve optimal aesthetics
.
Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent
.
1997
;
9
:
41
51
.
6
Esposito
M
,
Maghaireh
H
,
Grusovin
MG
,
Ziounas
I
,
Worthington
HV.
Soft tissue management for dental implants: what are the most effective techniques? A Cochrane systematic review
.
Eur J Oral Implantol
.
2012
;
5
:
221
238
.
7
Lin
GH
,
Chan
HL
,
Wang
HL.
The significance of keratinized mucosa on implant health: a systematic review
.
J Periodontol
.
2013
;
84
(
Suppl 12
):
1755
1767
.
8
Brito
C
,
Tenenbaum
HC
,
Wong
BK
,
Schmitt
C
,
Nogueira-Filho
G.
Is keratinized mucosa indispensable to maintain peri-implant health? A systematic review of the literature
.
J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater
.
2014
;
102
(
Suppl 3
):
643
650
.
9
Chung
DM
,
Oh
TJ
,
Shotwell
JL
,
Misch
CE
,
Wang
HL.
Significance of keratinized mucosa in maintenance of dental implants with different surfaces
.
J Periodontol
.
2006
;
77
:
1410
1420
.
10
Bouri
A
,
Bissada
N
,
Al-Zahrani
MS
,
Faddoul
F
,
Nouneh
I.
Width of keratinized gingiva and the health status of the supporting tissues around dental implants
.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
.
2008
;
23
:
323
326
.
11
Adibrad
M
,
Shahabuei
M
,
Sahabi
M.
Significance of the width of keratinized mucosa on the health status of the supporting tissue around implants supporting overdentures
.
J Oral Implantol
.
2009
;
35
:
232
237
.
12
Crespi
R
,
Capparè
P
,
Gherlone
E. A
4-year evaluation of the peri-implant parameters of immediately loaded implants placed in fresh extraction sockets
.
J Periodontol
.
2010
;
81
:
1629
1634
.
13
Boynueğri
D
,
Nemli
SK
,
Kasko
YA.
Significance of keratinized mucosa around dental implants: a prospective comparative study
.
Clin Oral Implants Res
.
2013
;
24
(
Suppl 8
):
928
933
.
14
Artzi
Z
,
Carmeli
G
,
Kozlovsky
A.
A distinguishable observation between survival and success rate outcome of hydroxyapatite-coated implants in 5–10 years in function
.
Clin Oral Implants Res
.
2006
;
17
(
Suppl 1
):
85
93
.
15
Zigdon
H
,
Machtei
EE.
The dimensions of keratinized mucosa around implants affect clinical and immunological parameters
.
Clin Oral Implants Res
.
2008
;
19
:
387
392
.
16
Bengazi
F
,
Wennström
JL
,
Lekholm
U.
Recession of the soft tissue margin at oral implants. A 2-year longitudinal prospective study
.
Clin Oral Implants Res
.
1996
;
7
:
303
310
.
17
Block
MS
,
Gardiner
D
,
Kent
JN
,
Misiek
DJ
,
Finger
IM
,
Guerra
L.
Hydroxyapatite-coated cylindrical implants in the posterior mandible: 10-year observations
.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
.
1996
;
11
:
626
633
.
18
Esposito
M
,
Grusovin
MG
,
Maghaireh
H
,
Coulthard
P
,
Worthington
HV.
Interventions for replacing missing teeth: management of soft tissues for dental implants
.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev
.
2007
;
18
(
Suppl 3
):
CD006697
.
19
Thoma
DS
,
Benić
GI
,
Zwahlen
M
,
Hämmerle
CH
,
Jung
RE.
A systematic review assessing soft tissue augmentation techniques
.
Clin Oral Implants Res
.
2009
;
20
(
Suppl 4
):
146
165
.
20
Langer
B
,
Sullivan
DY.
Osseointegration: its impact on the interrelationship of periodontics and restorative dentistry: part I
.
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent
.
1989
;
9
:
84
105
.
21
Langer
B
,
Langer
L.
Overlapped flap: a surgical modification for implant fixture installation
.
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent
.
1990
;
10
:
208
215
.
22
Büyüközdemir Aşkın
S
,
Berker
E
,
Akıncıbay
H
,
et al.
Necessity of keratinized tissues for dental implants: a clinical, immunological, and radiographic study
.
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res
.
2015
;
17
(
Suppl 1
):
1
12
.
23
Tunkel
J
,
de Stavola
L
,
Khoury
F.
Changes in soft tissue dimensions following three different techniques of stage-two surgery: a case series report
.
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent
.
2013
;
33
(
Suppl 4
):
411
418
.
24
Silness
J
,
Loe
H.
Periodontal disease in pregnancy. II. Correlation between oral hygiene and periodontal condition
.
Acta Odontol Scand
.
1964
;
22
:
121
135
.
25
Renvert
S
,
Roos-Jansaker
AM
,
Claffey
N.
Non-surgical treatment of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis: a literature review
.
J Clin Periodontol
.
2008
;
35
(
Suppl 8
):
305
315
.
26
Ainamo
J
,
Bay
I.
Problems and proposals for recording gingivitis and plaque
.
Int Dent J
.
1975
;
25
:
229
235
.
27
Ferreira
SD
,
Silva
GL
,
Cortelli
JR
,
Costa
JE
,
Costa
FO.
Prevalence and risk variables for peri-implant disease in Brazilian subjects
.
J Clin Periodontol
.
2006
;
33
:
929
935
.
28
Heitz-Mayfield
LJ.
Peri-implant diseases: diagnosis and risk indicators
.
J Clin Periodontol
.
2008
;
35
(
8 Suppl
):
292
304
.
29
Mombelli
A
,
Müller
N
,
Cionca
N.
The epidemiology of peri-implantitis
.
Clin Oral Implants Res
.
2012
;
23
(
Suppl 6
):
67
76
.
30
Klinge
B
,
Meyle
J.
Peri-implant tissue destruction. The Third EAO Consensus Conference 2012
.
Clin Oral Implants Res
.
2012
;
23
(
Suppl 6
):
108
110
.
31
Newman
MG
,
Takei
HH
,
Klokkevold
PR
,
Carranza
FA.
Periodontal plastic and esthetic surgery
.
In
:
Takei
HH
,
Scheyer
ET
,
Azzi
RR
,
Allen
EP
,
Han
TJ
,
eds
.
Proceedings of the Carranza's Clinical Periodontology
.
10th ed
.
St Louis
:
Saunders Elsevier/Saunders
;
2006
:
1005
1029
.
32
Paolantonio
M
,
Femminella
B
,
Coppolino
E
,
et al.
Autogenous periosteal barrier membranes and bone grafts in the treatment of periodontal intrabony defects of single-rooted teeth: a 12-month reentry randomized controlled clinical trial
.
J Periodontol
.
2010
;
81
:
1587
1595
.
33
Mahajan
A
,
Bharadwaj
A
,
Mahajan
P.
Comparison of periosteal pedicle graft and subepithelial connective tissue graft for the treatment of gingival recession defects
.
Aust Dent J
.
2012
;
57
:
51
57
.
34
Rateitschak
KH
,
Egli
U
,
Fringeli
G.
Recession: a 4-year longitudinal study after free gingival grafts
.
J Clin Periodontol
.
1979
;
6
:
158
164
.
35
Orsini
M
,
Orsini
G
,
Benlloch
D
,
Aranda
JJ
,
Lázaro
P
,
Sanz
M.
Esthetic and dimensional evaluation of free connective tissue grafts in prosthetically treated patients: a 1-year clinical study
.
J Periodontol
.
2004
;
75
:
470
477
.
36
Wessel
JR
,
Tatakis
DN.
Patient outcomes following subepithelial connective tissue graft and free gingival graft procedures
.
J Periodontol
.
2008
;
79
:
425
430
.
37
Sanz
M
,
Lorenzo
R
,
Aranda
JJ
,
Martin
C
,
Orsini
M.
Clinical evaluation of a new collagen matrix (Mucograft prototype) to enhance the width of keratinized tissue in patients with fixed prosthetic restorations: a randomized prospective clinical trial
.
J Clin Periodontol
.
2009
;
36
:
868
876
.
38
Bahat
O
,
Koplin
LM.
Pantographic lip expansion and bone grafting for ridge augmentation
.
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent
.
1989
;
9
:
344
353
.