Can patients detect peri‑implant mucosal inflammation? Results from a multicentre randomized trial.

PURPOSE:The objective of this study was to compare patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of peri‑implant soft tissue inflammation and aesthetics around single-tooth implants in the anterior maxillary region with three different implant-abutment interface designs. METHODS:Participants were randomized to one of three different types of implant-abutment interface designs [Conical (CI), flat-to-flat (FI), and Platform Switched (PS)]. Implants and provisional crowns with prefabricated titanium abutments were placed 5 months following extraction and/or ridge augmentation. Permanent ceramic crowns with zirconia abutments were placed after 12 weeks. To assess PROs, appearance and inflammation questionnaires were completed from provisional crown placement to the 3-year follow-up. RESULTS:Tooth appearance at the 3-year follow-up revealed a difference amongst CI, FI and PS implants (p=0.049; Kruskal-Wallis test). PS was rated better than FI (p=0.047) at 1 year for appearance of soft-tissue and satisfaction with colour. There were no differences for self-consciousness, smile and pain/discomfort while eating/hard food items. CONCLUSIONS:Although participants tended to rate the health of mucosa around PS implants as slighty better than the other two implant systems, the differences were minimal and inconsistent. Thus, patient satisfaction in terms self-perceived gingival health and esthetics was high for all 3 systems tested, suggesting that patients are unable to detect mucosal inflammation. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE:Patients find it difficult to perceive mucosal inflammation; hence, it is recommended that patients attend implant follow-up visits, even if they do not perceive inflammation. The study suggests that there is a relationship between the PROs and the clinical outcomes of tested implants.