Three‐Dimensional buccal bone anatomy and aesthetic outcome of single dental implants replacing maxillary incisors

Abstract Objectives This case series investigated by means of CBCT , buccal bone three‐dimensional anatomy at delayed, two‐stage implants in the maxillary incisal tooth region. Moreover, the relation between buccal bone anatomy and soft tissue aesthetics was assessed. Material and methods Twelve implants were analysed after on average 8.9 years in function. Baseline and re‐evaluation photographs were assessed using the pink aesthetic score ( PES ). Marginal bone changes were measured from intraoral X‐rays. The buccal bone volume associated with the implant and the implant surface not covered by visible buccal bone was computed on CBCT data sets. Buccal bone thickness and level were assessed, as well as the thickness of the crest distally and mesially of the implant. Changes in soft tissue forms and correlation between aesthetics and bone anatomy were calculated by nonparametric statistics. Results Buccal bone level was located 3.8 mm apical of the implant shoulder, and none of the implants had complete bone coverage. Buccal bone volume was 144.3 mm 3 , and 4.29 mm 3 in the more coronal 2 mm portion. PES did not differ at re‐evaluation (9.7) and baseline (9.2). PES was directly correlated with crestal thickness mesially and distally of the implant shoulder. No other significant correlations were observed between bone anatomy and PES or buccal peri‐implant health. Marginal bone gain over time was associated with greater coronal bone volume buccally and with greater buccal and marginal bone thickness, while loss was related to less or no bone. Conclusions Within present limitations, acceptable and stable aesthetics are not jeopardized by a thin or missing buccal bone.