Received: 25 May 2023 | Revised: 20 July 2023 | Accepted: 20 July 2023

DOI: 10.1111/clr.14154

CONSENSUS REPORT

Group 1 ITI Consensus Report: The role of bone dimensions

and soft tissue augmentation procedures on the stability
of clinical, radiographic, and patient-­reported outcomes of
implant treatment

Simon S. Jensen1,2 | Tara Aghaloo3 | Ronald E. Jung4 | Kristina Bertl5,6 |

7,8 9 10,11 12,13,14,15
Daniel Buser | Vivianne Chappuis | Luca de Stavola | Alberto Monje |
16 17 18
Alberto Pispero | Andrea Roccuzzo | Shakeel Shahdad | Martina Stefanini19 |
Lorenzo Tavelli20 | Hom-­Lay Wang21 | Giovanni Zucchelli19,22
1
Research Area Oral Surgery, Section for Oral Biology and Immunopathology, Department of Odontology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
2
Department of Oral & Maxillfacial Surgery, Centre for Head and Orthopedics, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
3
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, UCLA School of Dentistry, Los Angeles, California, USA
4
Center of Dental Medicine, Clinic of Reconstructive Dentistry, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland
5
Department of Periodontology, Dental Clinic, Faculty of Medicine, Sigmund Freud University, Vienna, Austria
6
Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Odontology, University of Malmö, Malmö, Sweden
7
School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
8
Private Practice, Bern, Switzerland
9
Department of Oral Surgery and Stomatology, Division of Oral Diagnostic Sciences, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
10
Department of Implantology, School of Dentistry, University of Padua, Padua, Italy
11
Private Practice, Padua, Italy
12
Department of Periodontology, Universitat Internacional de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain
13
Department of Periodontology, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
14
Department of Periodontology, ZMK University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
15
Private Practice, Badajoz, Spain
16
Department of Biomedical, Surgical and Dental Sciences, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
17
Department of Periodontology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
18
Department of Restorative Dentistry, Barts and The London School of Medicine & Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
19
Periodontology, School of Dentistry, Department of Biomedical and Neuromotor Sciences, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
20
Department of Oral Medicine, Infection, and Immunology, Division of Periodontology, Harvard School of Dental Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
21
Department of Periodontics and Oral Medicine, The University of Michigan, School of Dentistry, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
22
Department of Periodontics and Oral Medicine, School of Dentistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

Correspondence
Simon S. Jensen, Research Area Oral Abstract
Surgery, Section for Oral Biology and
Objectives: The aims of Working Group 1 were to address the role (i) of the buccolingual
Immunopathology, Department of
Odontology, University of Copenhagen, bone dimensions after implant placement in healed alveolar ridge sites on the occurrence
Nørre Allé 20, DK-­2200 Copenhagen N,
of biologic and aesthetic complications, and (ii) of soft tissue augmentation (STA) on the
Denmark.
Email: [email protected] stability of clinical, radiographic, and patient-­related outcomes of implant treatments.

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction
in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
© 2023 The Authors. Clinical Oral Implants Research published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Clin Oral Impl Res. 2023;34(Suppl. 26):43–49.  wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/clr | 43

 |

16000501, 2023, S26, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/clr.14154 by INASP/HINARI - BOLIVIA, Wiley Online Library on [07/02/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
44 JENSEN et al.

Materials and Methods: Two systematic reviews were prepared in advance of the
Consensus Conference and were discussed among the participants of Group 1.
Consensus statements, clinical recommendations, recommendations for future re-
search, and reflections on patient perspectives were based on structured group
discussions until consensus was reached among the entire group of experts. The
statements were then presented and accepted following further discussion and modi-
fications as required by the plenary.
Results: Dimensional changes of the alveolar ridge occurred after implant placement in
healed sites, and a reduction in buccal bone wall thickness (BBW) of 0.3 to 1.8 mm was
observed. In healed sites with a BBW of <1.5 mm after implant placement, increased
vertical bone loss, and less favorable clinical and radiographic outcomes were demon-
strated. Implants with buccal dehiscence defects undergoing simultaneous guided bone
regeneration, showed less vertical bone loss, and more favorable clinical and radiographic
outcomes, compared to non-­augmented dehiscence defects during initial healing.
At healthy single implant sites, probing depths, bleeding and plaque scores, and in-
terproximal bone levels evaluated at 1 year, remained stable for up to 5 years, with
or without STA. When single implant sites were augmented with connective tissue
grafts, either for soft tissue phenotype modification or buccal soft tissue dehiscence,
stable levels of the soft tissue margin, and stable or even increased soft tissue thick-
ness and/or width of keratinized mucosa could be observed from 1 to 5 years. In
contrast, non-­augmented sites were more prone to show apical migration of the soft
tissue margin in the long-­term. Favorable aesthetic and patient-­reported outcomes
after STA were documented to be stable from 1 to 5 years.
Conclusions: It is concluded that dimensional changes of the alveolar ridge occur after
implant placement in healed sites and that sites with a thin BBW after implant place-
ment are prone to exhibit less favorable clinical and radiographic outcomes. In addi-
tion, it is concluded that STA can provide stable clinical, radiographic, aesthetic, and
patient-­reported outcomes in the medium and long-­term.

KEYWORDS
aesthetics, bone augmentation, dental implant, evidence-­based dentistry, patient-­reported
outcome measures, soft tissue augmentation, surgical techniques, systematic review

1 | I NTRO D U C TI O N prepared by the working group. Finally, patient perspectives were

formulated supported by the Consensus Statements from the sys-
The objectives of Group 1 of the 7th ITI Consensus Conference were tematic reviews and the Clinical Recommendations.
to provide statements and recommendations for clinicians and re-
searchers related to the effect of buccal bone wall thickness (BBW) The two systematic reviews are listed below:
and soft tissue augmentation (STA) procedures on the development 1. Influence of buccal bone wall thickness on the peri-­implant
of peri-­implant disease, incidence of complications, stability of clin- hard and soft tissue dimensional changes: A systematic review.
ical, volumetric and radiographic parameters, and patient-­reported Alberto Monje, Andrea Roccuzzo, Daniel Buser, Hom-­L ay Wang.
outcome measures (PROMs) after implant therapy. 2. Do soft tissue augmentation techniques provide stable and fa-
For Working Group 1, two systematic reviews were prepared vorable peri-­implant conditions in the medium and long-­term? A
and reviewed before the Consensus Conference. Based on the data systematic review.
of the systematic reviews and on thorough discussions among the
participants of Group 1 and among the entire plenum, the Consensus Martina Stefanini, Shayan Barootchi, Alberto Pispero, Maria
Statements and Clinical Recommendations were carefully formu- Gabriella Grusovin, Leonardo Mancini, Giovanni Zucchelli, Lorenzo
lated. In addition, Recommendations for Future Research were also Tavelli.
 |

16000501, 2023, S26, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/clr.14154 by INASP/HINARI - BOLIVIA, Wiley Online Library on [07/02/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
JENSEN et al. 45

2 | S YS TE M ATI C R E V I E W PA PE R 1 This statement was supported by two prospective clinical studies

and one preclinical study. Reduction of BBW is observed after im-
2.1 | Manuscript title plant placement in healed sites (0.3 to 1.8 mm; up to 72 months). This
statement was supported by 11 prospective clinical studies.
Influence of buccal bone wall thickness on the peri-­implant hard and
soft tissue dimensional changes: A systematic review.
2.3.2 | Consensus statement 2

2.2 | Preamble After implant placement in healed sites with a thin BBW, vertical bone
loss occurs during initial healing. This statement was supported by five
It is well established that the presence of alveolar bone is a prereq- prospective, two retrospective clinical studies, and 1 preclinical study.
uisite for osseointegration of dental implants. However, the exact
amount of alveolar bone that is required to ensure the long-­term
stability of the peri-­implant bone and to support the soft tissue has 2.3.3 | Consensus statement 3
not yet been systematically evaluated. Lack of buccal bone has been
documented to be a risk factor for the development of biologic and Implants with buccal dehiscence defects undergoing simultaneous
aesthetic complications. On the other hand, the potential preventive guided bone regeneration, show less vertical bone loss, and more
effect of bone augmentation of thin BBWs or dehiscence defects favorable clinical and radiographic outcomes, compared to non-­
simultaneously with implant placement in healed sites on biologic augmented dehiscence defects during initial healing. This statement
and aesthetic complications has not been systematically evaluated. was supported by one RCT (22 patients, 28 implants).
The aim of the present systematic review was to evaluate the in-
fluence of BBW and the overall dimensions of alveolar bone upon soft
and hard tissue stability and to assess the effectiveness of simultane- 2.3.4 | Consensus statement 4
ous bone augmentation procedures to prevent biological and aesthetic
complications when implants were placed in healed sites. Implants placed in healed sites exhibiting thin BBWs, not undergoing
The main goal was to correlate the BBW of implants placed in simultaneous bone augmentation, are prone to less favorable clinical
healed sites to the primary outcome parameter: vertical bone loss. (i.e., increased peri-­implant probing pocket depth, bleeding on prob-
Secondary outcome parameters included changes in buccal bone ing, suppuration or mucosal recession), and radiographic outcomes.
thickness, buccolingual ridge dimensions, peri-­implant clinical param- This statement was supported by six prospective clinical studies and
eters, crestal bone loss, and patient-­reported outcome measures. In one preclinical study.
addition, the same primary and secondary outcome parameters were
analyzed to evaluate the effect of bone augmentation of thin buccal
bone walls and dehiscence defects simultaneous with implant place- 2.4 | Clinical recommendations
ment in healed sites to prevent biological and aesthetic complications.
Out of 1700 identified records, 16 studies (12 clinical and 4 2.4.1 | Clinical recommendation 1
preclinical studies) could be included for the qualitative analysis.
Preclinical studies were included in the analysis to potentially pro- Do we need an intact buccal bone wall for long-­term peri-­implant health?
vide histologic data explaining the biologic background for clinically An intact buccal bone wall is necessary to avoid exposure to the
and radiographically observed peri-­implant changes. implant surface designed to be inside the bone, such as a micror-
For the present consensus report, a BBW of <1.5 mm was consid- ough surface. Therefore, simultaneous bone augmentation is recom-
ered a “thin” buccal bone wall. “Initial healing” after implant placement mended in cases of buccal dehiscence defects or a thin buccal bone
in healed sites was defined as ≤6 months. The available data did not wall to maintain long-­term peri-­implant health.
allow to distinguish between open-­flap and flapless approaches during However, when soft tissue conditions are favorable, peri-­implant
implant placement. However, most of the implants documented in the health can be maintained in the presence of minor buccal bone
included studies were placed with open-­flap procedures. deficiencies.

2.3 | Consensus statements 2.4.2 | Clinical recommendation 2

2.3.1 | Consensus statement 1 How thick should the buccal bone wall be after implant placement
in healed sites?
The alveolar ridge is subjected to buccolingual dimensional reduc- A buccal bone wall thickness of >1.5 mm is recommended at the
tion during initial healing after implant placement in healed sites. time of implant placement to promote long-­term peri-­implant health.
 |

16000501, 2023, S26, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/clr.14154 by INASP/HINARI - BOLIVIA, Wiley Online Library on [07/02/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
46 JENSEN et al.

Aside from bone augmentation, this may, in selected cases, be 2.5.4 | Patient perspective 4
achieved by reducing implant diameter, placing the implant deeper in the
alveolar crest, or flattening the alveolar ridge (in the posterior region). Question: When do I get my crown after implant placement and
bone grafting?
Answer: In a routine case, you will need to wait 2–­3 months after
2.4.3 | Clinical recommendation 3 implant placement and bone grafting for a fixed temporary crown.
With a more complex situation, it may take up to 6 months. In ad-
Is bone augmentation per se enough to achieve a satisfying aesthetic dition, some aesthetic changes may take place during healing, so it
result? may take 6–­9 months for the final crown to be delivered.
In the majority of cases, simultaneous bone augmentation
can achieve satisfactory aesthetic results. However, in cases
with high aesthetic demands exhibiting a thin soft tissue pheno- 2.5.5 | Patient perspective 5
type or a soft tissue deficiency, an additional STA procedure is
recommended. Question: Will I need antibiotics after the implant surgery?
Answer: This is a controversial topic. If bone grafting is required, we
would recommend antibiotics. These can either be given before sur-
2.5 | Patent perspectives gery, after surgery, or both. For implant placement, it will depend on
your medical risk factors.
2.5.1 | Patient perspective 1

Question: Do I have enough bone for an implant to be placed? 2.6 | Recommendations for future research
Answer: To answer this, we first need to examine your mouth,
take radiographs and plan the best position for the implant. 2.6.1 | Recommendation 1 for future research
At this point, we can determine if there will be enough bone
around it. The bone needs to be 1.5 mm thick on the cheek/ The influence of anatomical and procedural factors on the dynam-
lip side of the implant and 1 mm thick on the palate/tongue ics of buccal bone resorption during initial healing after implant
side. So if the implant is 4 mm in diameter the bone needs to be placement in areas exhibiting different thicknesses of the buccal
6.5–­7 mm wide. bone wall, such as mandible vs. maxilla, zone of keratinized mu-
cosa, open flap vs. flapless procedure, submerged vs. transmucosal
healing.
2.5.2 | Patient perspective 2

Question: Can I have a bone graft at the same time as the implant 2.6.2 | Recommendation 2 for future research
is placed?
Answer: Yes, it can be done at the same time, but it depends on Long-­term clinical performance of different implant designs and im-
how much grafting is required and how stable the implant is when plant surface characteristics in sites with thin buccal bone walls or
it is placed. If we can place an implant in the correct position with dehiscence defects.
good stability but still lack some bone thickness in places (see
Section 2.5.1), then a bone graft can be performed at the same
time. 2.6.3 | Recommendation 3 for future research

The long-­term effect of bone augmentation of thin buccal bone walls

2.5.3 | Patient perspective 3 on clinical, aesthetic, and radiographic parameters.

Question: Will the bone graft come from my mouth or from

elsewhere? 3 | S YS TE M ATI C R E V I E W PA PE R 2
Answer: In most cases, we can collect bone from the same site
where the implant is being placed. When a greater amount of bone 3.1 | Manuscript title
is needed, we may need to go to a second surgical site inside your
mouth. Often, however, the use of a bone substitute material, alone Do soft tissue augmentation techniques provide stable and favora-
or in combination with your own bone, will avoid the need to use ble peri-­implant conditions in the medium and long-­term? A system-
bone from other surgical sites. atic review.
 |

16000501, 2023, S26, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/clr.14154 by INASP/HINARI - BOLIVIA, Wiley Online Library on [07/02/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
JENSEN et al. 47

3.2 | Preamble augmentation is performed. This statement is supported by 12 stud-

ies (3 RCTs and 9 prospective clinical studies).
STA is often performed around implants to treat aesthetic complica-
tions, improve mucosal thickness, increase keratinized mucosa width,
and reconstruct papillae. Keratinized mucosa width has been associ- 3.3.2 | Consensus statement 2
ated with improved peri-­implant health, as well as less marginal bone
loss and reduced patient discomfort during brushing. However, the At healthy single implant sites, probing depths, bleeding, and plaque
medium and long-­term effects of STA around dental implants remain scores evaluated at 1 year, remain stable for up to 5 years, with or
unclear in the literature. Although some studies report improvement without soft tissue augmentation. This statement is supported by 11
in clinical parameters and PROMs in the short-­term, questions remain studies (2 RCTs and 9 prospective clinical studies).
regarding the stability of marginal soft tissue and bone levels.
The aim of this study was to systematically review prospective
clinical reporting on medium and long-­term stability of clinical, volu- 3.3.3 | Consensus statement 3
metric, and radiographic parameters, as well as the incidence of peri-­
implant disease, complications, and PROMs. Single implant sites augmented with connective tissue grafts, ei-
The main goal and primary outcome of the systematic review ther for soft tissue phenotype modification or buccal soft tissue
was to evaluate the stability of peri-­implant health after STA at me- dehiscence, display a stable level of the soft tissue margin up to
dium and long-­term follow-­up (≥36 months). 5 years. This statement is supported by 10 studies (2 RCTs and
Secondary outcomes were as follows: 8 prospective clinical studies). Non-­augmented sites may show
apical migration of the soft tissue margin in the long-­term. This
• Implant survival statement is supported by five studies (1 RCT and 4 prospective
• Incidence of complications clinical studies).
• Changes in the position of the peri-­implant soft tissue margin
• Changes in peri-­implant clinical parameters (plaque index/score,
bleeding on probing/bleeding index, pocket depths) 3.3.4 | Consensus statement 4
• Radiographic marginal bone levels
• PROMs Single implant sites receiving connective tissue grafts, display stable,
or even increased soft tissue thickness and/or width of keratinized
The present systematic review is based on 15 clinical studies, mucosa, from 1 to 5 years. This statement is supported by five stud-
including 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 5 non-­randomized ies (1 RCT and 4 prospective clinical studies) for soft tissue thickness
clinical trials, and 6 case series. The study population included 447 and three studies (1 RCT and 2 prospective clinical studies) for the
patients with 461 implants, with a follow-­up period ranging from 3 width of keratinized mucosa.
to 10 years (mean 8 years).
Sufficient data was not available to perform a meta-­analysis of
the primary outcome (stability of peri-­implant health after STA at 3.3.5 | Consensus statement 5
medium and long-­term follow-­up; ≥36 months). Only descriptive
analyses were possible for the primary and secondary outcome Single implant sites after augmentation with connective tissue grafts
measures, including the incidence of peri-­implant disease, stability or substitutes with favorable aesthetic outcomes (i.e., pink aesthetic
of marginal soft tissue, stability of crestal bone levels, and PROMs. score, visual analog scale) are maintained or even improved, from 1
When interpreting the results, it is important to understand that to 5 years. This statement is supported by four studies (1 RCT and 3
medium-­term follow-­up is defined as 3–­5 years, and long-­term re- prospective clinical studies) for connective tissue grafts and 1 RCT
fers to >5 years. STA procedures were performed for different in- for substitutes (15 patients in total, 8 vs. 7 implants). Single implant
dications (soft tissue phenotype modification and treatment of soft sites without soft tissue augmentation may display a higher discol-
tissue dehiscences), and due to the limited available evidence, it was oration (ie. mucosal discoloration score) compared to sites with con-
difficult to draw significant conclusions about soft tissue substitutes. nective tissue grafts. This statement is supported by 1 prospective
clinical study (17 patients in total, 28 implants, 20 vs. 8).

3.3 | Consensus statements

3.3.6 | Consensus statement 6
3.3.1 | Consensus statement 1
Single implant sites receiving soft tissue augmentation maintain
Single implant sites may display stable peri-­implant interproximal stable patient-­reported aesthetic outcomes, from 1 to 5 years. This
bone levels in the medium and long-­term, whether or not soft tissue statement is based on three studies (1 RCT and 2 prospective clinical
 |

16000501, 2023, S26, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/clr.14154 by INASP/HINARI - BOLIVIA, Wiley Online Library on [07/02/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
48 JENSEN et al.

studies). Patient-­reported brushing discomfort is reduced at implant 3.5 | Patient perspectives

sites where keratinized mucosa width was augmented with a free
gingival graft. This statement is based on 1 prospective clinical 3.5.1 | Patient perspective 1
study, including 98 patients and 98 implants followed up to 10 years.
Question: How long will I have to be without a tooth?
Answer: Ideally, we will try to avoid leaving you without a tooth. We
3.4 | Clinical recommendations can offer both fixed and removable solutions and design them so
there is no pressure on the surgical site. If you already have a tooth
3.4.1 | Clinical recommendation 1 replacement, we can adjust it (usually by cutting it back by 2 mm) to
avoid any pressure.
Are soft tissue augmentation procedures recommended in the pres-
ence of inadequate keratinized mucosa at healthy implant sites?
In patients with difficulty in plaque control and/or reporting 3.5.2 | Patient perspective 2
brushing discomfort, a free gingival graft is recommended in non-­
aesthetic implant sites, whereas a connective tissue graft is recom- Question: Will I need to have a soft tissue graft?
mended in aesthetic implant sites. Answer: It depends on the shape and volume of your jaw bone and
gum where the implant is to be placed.

3.4.2 | Clinical recommendation 2

3.5.3 | Patient perspective 3
Are soft tissue augmentation procedures recommended in the pres-
ence of a thin soft tissue phenotype at healthy implant sites? Question: Will you use part of my palate to increase the thickness of
Soft tissue augmentation procedures are recommended only gum around the implant?
when there is a patient aesthetic request. A connective tissue graft Answer: Most likely we will need to use soft tissue from your palate,
should be used when there is no keratinized mucosa, while soft tis- either from behind the teeth or from the back of the upper jaw. In
sue substitutes may also be selected as an alternative in the pres- some specific cases, we may be able to use a soft tissue substitute.
ence of keratinized mucosa.

3.5.4 | Patient perspective 4

3.4.3 | Clinical recommendation 3
Question: How long after implant placement and soft tissue grafting
Are soft tissue augmentation procedures recommended in the pres- will I get the crown?
ence of a mid-­facial soft tissue dehiscence at a restored implant with Answer: In some favorable cases it is possible to have a screw-­
healthy peri-­implant conditions? retained temporary crown fitted immediately. If this is not possible,
In case of acceptable 3-­dimensional implant position: Soft tis- 3 months is usually the longest you will have to wait.
sue augmentation with a connective tissue graft is recommended to
improve aesthetic outcomes and promote long-­term stability of the
soft tissue margin. 3.5.5 | Patient perspective 5
In case of facial implant malposition: In the presence of patient
aesthetic complaints and based on the severity of implant malpo- Question: Can bone and soft tissue grafting be performed in the
sition, two treatment options should be considered: connective same surgical procedure?
tissue graft with a new implant crown/abutment, or removal of Answer: Yes, this can be done if the conditions are favorable and
the implant. feasible.

3.4.4 | Clinical recommendation 4 3.6 | Recommendations for future research

In the presence of a concave soft tissue profile and thin buccal bone, 3.6.1 | Recommendation 1 for future research
can soft tissue augmentation be performed alone?
In the presence of patient aesthetic complaint or difficulty in Long-­term efficacy of soft tissue substitute materials to in-
plaque control due to a concave soft tissue profile, a connective tis- crease peri-­implant soft tissue phenotype and to treat soft tissue
sue graft is recommended. dehiscences.
 |

16000501, 2023, S26, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/clr.14154 by INASP/HINARI - BOLIVIA, Wiley Online Library on [07/02/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
JENSEN et al. 49

3.6.2 | Recommendation 2 for future research Kristina Bertl https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8279-7943

Daniel Buser https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3920-4257
Long-­term stability of the level of the mucosal margin around dental Vivianne Chappuis https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1227-7587
implants with thin or missing buccal bone wall undergoing soft tissue Luca de Stavola https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6270-5143
augmentation. Alberto Monje https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8292-1927
Andrea Roccuzzo https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8079-0860
AU T H O R C O N T R I B U T I O N S Shakeel Shahdad https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5354-9847
All co-­authors contributed to the wording of the consensus state- Martina Stefanini https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9154-637X
ments, clinical recommendations, patient perspectives, and rec- Lorenzo Tavelli https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4864-3964
ommendations for future research. Simon Storgård Jensen, Tara Hom-­Lay Wang https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4238-1799
Aghaloo and Ronald E. Jung drafted the manuscript. All authors gave Giovanni Zucchelli https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6471-039X
their final approval and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of
the consensus report.

C O N F L I C T O F I N T E R E S T S TAT E M E N T
How to cite this article: Jensen, S. S., Aghaloo, T., Jung, R. E.,
All co-­authors reported no conflicts of interest with regards to the
Bertl, K., Buser, D., Chappuis, V., de Stavola, L., Monje, A.,
present consensus report.
Pispero, A., Roccuzzo, A., Shahdad, S., Stefanini, M., Tavelli,
L., Wang, H.-L., & Zucchelli, G. (2023). Group 1 ITI Consensus
DATA AVA I L A B I L I T Y S TAT E M E N T
Report: The role of bone dimensions and soft tissue
None.
augmentation procedures on the stability of clinical,
radiographic, and patient-­reported outcomes of implant
ORCID
treatment. Clinical Oral Implants Research, 34(Suppl. 26),
Simon S. Jensen https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3519-4103
43–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.14154
Tara Aghaloo https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2079-5870
Ronald E. Jung https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2055-1320