LAUSR

Abstract Objectives In systematically healthy patients with an implant‐supported fixed restoration (P), what is the influence of thin (E) as compared to thick (C) peri‐implant soft tissues on aesthetic outcomes (O)? Methods Following an a priori protocol, a literature search of six databases was conducted up to August 2020 to identify prospective/retrospective clinical studies on healthy patients with an implant‐supported fixed reconstruction. Measurement of the buccal soft tissue thickness and an aesthetic outcome was a prerequisite, and sites presenting with a buccal soft tissue thickness of <2 mm or shimmering of a periodontal probe were categorized as a thin phenotype. After study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment, random‐effects meta‐analysis of Mean Differences (MD) or Odds Ratios (OR) with their corresponding 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were conducted, followed by sensitivity analyses and assessment of the quality of evidence. Results Thirty‐four unique studies reporting on 1508 patients with 1606 sites were included (9 randomized controlled trials, one controlled trial, 10 prospective cohort studies, 8 cross‐sectional studies, and 6 retrospective cohort studies). The mean difference of the pink aesthetic score (PES) after the follow‐up was not significantly different between thin (<2.0 mm) or thick soft tissues (≥2.0 mm) or phenotypes (12 studies; MD = 0.15; [95% CI = −0.24, 0.53]; p = .46). PES changes during the follow‐up, however, were significantly in favour of thick soft tissues (≥2.0 mm) or phenotypes (p = .05). An increased mean mucosal thickness was associated with an increased papilla index (5 studies; MD = 0.5; [95% CI = 0.1, 0.3]; p = .002) and an increase in papilla presence (5 studies; OR = 1.6; [95% CI = 1.0, 2.3]; p = .03). Thin soft tissues were associated with more recession, −0.62 mm (4 studies; [95% CI = −1.06, −0.18]; p = .006). Patient‐reported outcome measures (patient satisfaction) were in favour of thick soft tissues −2.33 (6 studies; [95% CI = −4.70, 0.04]; p = .05). However, the quality of evidence was very low in all instances due to the inclusion of non‐randomized studies, high risk of bias and residual confounding. Conclusion Within the limitations of the present study (weak study designs and various soft tissue measurements or time‐points), it can be concluded that increased soft tissue thickness at implant sites was associated with more favourable aesthetic outcomes.