Implant survival and Peri-implant soft tissue

Only one study (Linsen et al. ) reported on the effect of the peri-implant soft tissue and implant survival of implants placed into autogenous bone grafts. Linsen et al. reported a higher implant failure of implants placed into bone and soft tissue grafts in comparison to implants placed into a bone grafts with residual soft tissues. This difference, however, was not found to be statistically significant (p = 0.436).

In the other 19 studies, the effect of the peri-implant soft tissue was not directly reported as being a factor for implant survival. However, implant success appeared to be significantly affected by the peri-implant soft tissues (see the "Implant Survival and Implant Success" and "Complications" sections – for further details).

Implant survival and implant success

In nine studies (Schultes et al., Fenlon et al., Wang et al., Zou et al., Chiapasco et al., Chiapasco et al., Watzinger et al. Wu et al., Chiapasco et al.), both implant survival and success data was reported or provided (Table 2). When comparing implant survival and implant success in eight studies (Schultes et al., Fenlon et al., Wang et al., Zou et al., Chiapasco et al., Chiapasco et al., Watzinger et al., Wu et al., Chiapasco et al.) implant success was found to be lower than implant survival but in one study (Chiapasco et al.) implant survival and success were reported as being the same. The reasons for a lack of implant success within these eight studies (other than implant failure/loss) were related to excessive peri-implant bone loss in five studies (Wang et al., Zou et al., Chiapasco et al., Chiapasco et al., Wu et al.), an inability to prosthetically restore the implants in four studies (Schultes et al., Fenlon et al., Watzinger et al., Wu et al.) and gingival hyperplasia in one study (Zou).