Objective: To review the dental literature in terms of soft tissue augmentation procedures and their influence on peri‐implant health or disease in partially and fully edentulous patients.Methods: A MEDLINE search from 1966 to 2016 was performed to identify controlled clinical studies comparing soft tissue grafting versus no soft tissue grafting (maintenance) or two types of soft tissue grafting procedures at implant sites. The soft tissue grafting procedures included either an increase of keratinized tissue or an increase of the thickness of the peri‐implant mucosa. Studies reporting on the peri‐implant tissue health, as assessed by bleeding or gingival indices, were included in the review. The search was complemented by an additional hand search of all selected full‐text articles and reviews published between 2011 and 2016. The initial search yielded a total number of 2,823 studies. Eligible studies were selected based on the inclusion criteria (finally included: four studies on gain of keratinized tissue; six studies on gain of mucosal thickness) and quality assessments conducted. Meta‐analyses were applied whenever possible.Results: Soft tissue grafting procedures for gain of keratinized tissue resulted in a significantly greater improvement of gingival index values compared to maintenance groups (with or without keratinized tissue) [n = 2; WMD = 0.863; 95% CI (0.658; 1.067); p < .001]. For final marginal bone levels, statistically significant differences were calculated in favor of an apically positioned flap (APF) plus autogenous grafts versus all control treatments (APF alone; APF plus a collagen matrix; maintenance without intervention [with or without residual keratinized tissue]) [n = 4; WMD = −0.175 mm; 95% CI: (−0.313; −0.037); p = .013]. Soft tissue grafting procedures for gain of mucosal thickness did not result in significant improvements in bleeding indices over time, but in significantly less marginal bone loss over time [WMD = 0.110; 95% CI: 0.067; 0.154; p < .001] and a borderline significance for marginal bone levels at the study endpoints compared to sites without grafting.Conclusions: Within the limitations of this review, it was concluded that soft tissue grafting procedures result in more favorable peri‐implant health: (i) for gain of keratinized mucosa using autogenous grafts with a greater improvement of bleeding indices and higher marginal bone levels; (ii) for gain of mucosal thickness using autogenous grafts with significantly less marginal bone loss.

Objectives: The aim of Working Group 1 was to address the influence of different local (implant length, diameter, and design) and systemic (medications) factors on clinical, radiographic, and patient‐reported outcomes in implant dentistry. Focused questions on (a) short posterior dental implants (≤6 mm), (b) narrow diameter implants, (c) implant design (tapered compared to a non‐tapered implant design), and (d) medication‐related dental implant failures were addressed.Materials and methods: Four systematic reviews were prepared in advance of the Consensus Conference and were discussed among the participants of Group 1. Consensus statements, clinical recommendations, and recommendations for future research were based on structured group discussions until consensus was reached among the entire expert Group 1. The statements were then presented and accepted following further discussion and modifications as required by the plenary.Results: Short implants (≤6 mm) revealed a survival rate ranging from 86.7% to 100%, whereas standard implant survival rate ranged from 95% to 100% with a follow‐up from 1 to 5 years. Short implants demonstrated a higher variability and a higher Risk Ratio [RR: 1.24 (95% CI: 0.63, 2.44, p = 0.54)] for failure compared to standard implants.Narrow diameter implants (NDI) have been classified into three categories: Category 1: Implants with a diameter of <2.5 mm (“Mini‐implants”); Category 2: Implants with a diameter of 2.5 mm to <3.3 mm; Category 3: Implants with a diameter of 3.3 mm to 3.5 mm. Mean survival rates were 94.7 ± 5%, 97.3 ± 5% and 97.7 ± 2.3% for category 1, 2 and 3.Tapered versus non‐tapered implants demonstrated only insignificant differences regarding clinical, radiographic, and patient‐reported outcomes. The intake of certain selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and proton pump inhibitors is associated with a statistically significant increased implant failure rate. The intake of bisphosphonates related to the treatment of osteoporosis was not associated with an increased implant failure rate.Conclusions: It is concluded that short implants (≤6 mm) are a valid option in situations of reduced bone height to avoid possible morbidity associated with augmentation procedures; however, they reveal a higher variability and lower predictability in survival rates. Narrow diameter implants with diameters of 2.5 mm and more demonstrated no difference in implant survival rates compared to standard diameter implants. In contrast, it is concluded that narrow diameter implants with diameters of less than 2.5 mm exhibited lower survival rates compared to standard diameter implants. It is further concluded that there are no differences between tapered versus non‐tapered dental implants.Certain medications such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and proton pump inhibitors showed an association with a higher implant failure rate.

Objectives: The goal of Working Group 1 at the 2nd Consensus Meeting of the Osteology Foundation was to comprehensively assess the effects of soft tissue augmentation procedures on peri‐implant health or disease.Materials and methods: A systematic review and meta‐analysis on the effects of soft tissue augmentation procedures included a total of 10 studies (mucosal thickness: n = 6; keratinized tissue: n = 4). Consensus statements, clinical recommendations, and implications for future research were based on structured group discussions and a plenary session approval.Results: Soft tissue grafting to increase the width of keratinized tissue around implants was associated with greater reductions in gingival and plaque indices when compared to non‐augmented sites. Statistically significant differences were noted for final marginal bone levels in favor of an apically positioned flap plus autogenous graft vs. all standard‐of‐care control treatments investigated. Soft tissue grafting (i.e., autogenous connective tissue) to increase the mucosal thickness around implants in the aesthetic zone was associated with significantly less marginal bone loss over time, but no significant changes in bleeding on probing, probing depths, or plaque scores when compared to sites without grafting.Conclusions: The limited evidence available supports the use of soft tissue augmentation procedures to promote peri‐implant health.