OR Foundation
  • About
    • Oral Reconstruction Foundation
      • Purpose and Mission
      • Foundation Board
      • Scientific Working Group
      • Education Working Group
      • History
      • Career
      • News
  • Granting
  • Publications
    • Grant Publications
    • Consensus Publications
  • Awards
    • Research Award
      • Awards 2018/2019
      • Award 2016/2017
      • Award 2014/2015
      • Award 2012/2013
      • Award 2010/2011
      • Award 2008/2009
    • Poster Competition
      • Competition 2024
      • Competition 2018
      • Competition 2016
      • Competition 2014
      • Competition 2012
  • Education
    • International Symposia
    • Global Symposia
    • National Symposia
    • Education Courses
    • Webinars
  • Contact
Select Page

Influence of four different abutment materials and the adhesive joint of two-piece abutments on cervical implant bone and soft tissue.


Mehl C, Gassling V, Schultz-Langerhans S, Açil Y, Bähr T, Wilfgang J, Kern M

Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2016;31:1264-72 (Grant CF31401)

Abstract

Purpose:

The main aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of four different abutment materials and the adhesive joint of two-piece abutments on the cervical implant bone and soft tissue.

Material and methods:

Sixty-four titanium implants (Camlog Conelog; 4.3 ± 9 mm) were placed bone level into the edentulous arches of four minipigs. Four different types of abutments were placed at implant exposure: zirconium dioxide, lithium disilicate, and titanium bonded to a titanium luting base with resin cement; one-piece titanium abutments served as the control. The animals were sacrificed 6 months after implant exposure, and the bone-to-implant contact (BIC) area, sulcus depth, the length of the junctional epithelium and the connective tissue, the biologic width, and first cervical BIC-implant shoulder distance were measured using histomorphometry and light and fluorescence microscopy.

Results:

Overall, 14 implants were lost (22%). At exposure, the implant shoulder-bone distance was 0.6 ± 0.7 mm. Six months later, the bone loss was 2.1 ± 1.2 mm measured histomorphometrically. There was a significant difference between the two measurements (P ≤ .0001). No significant influence could be found between any of the abutment materials with regard to bone loss or soft tissue anatomy (P > .05), with the exception of zirconium dioxide and onepiece titanium abutments when measuring the length of the junctional epithelium (P ≤ .01). The maxilla provided significantly more soft tissue and less bone loss compared with the mandible (P ≤ .02).

Conclusion:

All tested abutment materials and techniques seem to be comparable with regard to soft tissue properties and the cervical bone level.

SOURCE

  • Facebook
  • X
  • Instagram
  • RSS

© Oral Reconstruction Foundation 2026 | Imprint | Disclaimer | Privacy | Sitemap | Professional websites Basel