The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 17 , ISSUE 1 ( January, 2016 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Marginal Bone Remodeling around healing Abutment vs Final Abutment Placement at Second Stage Implant Surgery: A 12-month Randomized Clinical Trial

Ronald Younes, Antoine Berberi, Maissa Aboulhosn, Cordahi Manal

Citation Information : Younes R, Berberi A, Aboulhosn M, Manal C. Marginal Bone Remodeling around healing Abutment vs Final Abutment Placement at Second Stage Implant Surgery: A 12-month Randomized Clinical Trial. J Contemp Dent Pract 2016; 17 (1):7-15.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1795

Published Online: 01-01-2016

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2016; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Background

The periimplant bone level has been used as one of the criteria to assess the success of dental implants. It has been documented that the bone supporting two-piece implants undergoes resorption first following the second-stage surgery and later on further to abutment connection and delivery of the final prosthesis.

Objective

The aim of this multicentric randomized clinical trial was to evaluate the crestal bone resorption around internal connection dental implants using a new surgical protocol that aims to respect the biological distance, relying on the benefit of a friction fit connection abutment (test group) compared with implants receiving conventional healing abutments at secondstage surgery (control group).

Materials and methods

A total of partially edentulous patients were consecutively treated at two private clinics, with two adjacent two-stage implants. Three months after the first surgery, one of the implants was randomly allocated to the control group and was uncovered using a healing abutment, while the other implant received a standard final abutment and was seated and tightened to 30 Ncm. At each step of the prosthetic try-in, the abutment in the test group was removed and then retightened to 30 Ncm. Horizontal bone changes were assessed using periapical radiographs immediately after implant placement and at 3 (second-stage surgery), 6, 9 and 12 months follow-up examinations.

Results

At 12 months follow-up, no implant failure was reported in both groups. In the control group, the mean periimplant bone resorption was 0.249 ± 0.362 at M3, 0.773 ± 0.413 at M6, 0.904 ± 0.36 at M9 and 1.047 ± 0.395 at M12. The test group revealed a statistically significant lower marginal bone loss of 20.88% at M3 (0.197 ± 0.262), 22.25% at M6 (0.601 ± 0.386), 24.23% at M9 (0.685 ± 0.341) and 19.2% at M9 (0.846 ± 0.454). The results revealed that bone loss increased over time, with the greatest change in bone loss occurring between 3 and 6 months. Alveolar bone loss was significantly greater in the control condition than the test condition.

Conclusion

The results of this prospective study demonstrated the benefit of placing a prosthetic component with a stable connection at second-stage surgery, in terms of reduced marginal bone remodeling when compared with conventional procedure.

Clinical significance. The use of a stable connection in a healing component during try-in stages prior to final restoration placement leads to less periimplant marginal bone loss.

How to cite this article

Nader N, Aboulhosn M, Berberi A, Manal C, Younes R. Marginal Bone Remodeling around healing Abutment vs Final Abutment Placement at Second Stage Surgery: A 12-month Randomized Clinical Trial. J Contemp Dent Pract 2016;17(1):7-15.


PDF Share
  1. Radiological evaluation of marginal bone loss at tooth surfaces facing single Brånemark implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 1993 Sep;4(3):151-157.
  2. Biologic outcome of implant-supported restorations in the treatment of partial edentulism. Part 2: a longituadinal radiographic evaluation. Clin Oral Implants Res 2002 Aug;13(4):390-395.
  3. A systematic review of marginal bone loss around implants retaining or supporting overdentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2010 Mar-Apr;25(2):266-277.
  4. Effects of different implant surfaces and designs on marginal bone-level alterations: a review. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009 Sep;20(Suppl 4):207-215.
  5. Evaluation of load transfer characteristic of five different implants in compact bone at different load levels by finite element analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2004 Dec;92(6):523-530.
  6. Influence of the size of the microgap on crestal bone changes around titanium implants. A histometric evaluation of unloaded non-submerged implants in the canine mandible. J Periodontol 2001 Oct;72(1):1372-1383.
  7. Lack of integration of smooth titanium surfaces: a working hypothesis based on strains generated in the surrounding bone. Clin Oral Implants Res 1999 Dec;10(6):429-444.
  8. Significance and clinical relevance of biologic width to implant dentistry. J Interdiscip Dentistry 2012;2:84-91.
  9. Biologic width around one- and two-piece titanium implants. A histometric evaluation of unloaded nonsubmerged and submerged implants in the canine mandible. Clin Oral Implants Res 2001;12:559-571.
  10. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 20.0. [Computer software]. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp; 2011.
  11. Using multivariate statistics (5th edition). Boston: Allyn and Bacon; 2006.
  12. Platform switching: a panacea for bone loss? J Indian Soc Periodontol 2013 Sep;17(5):681-683.
  13. The longterm efficacy of currently used dental implants: a review and proposed criteria of success. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1986 Summer;1(1):11-25.
  14. The causes of early implant bone loss: myth or science? J Periodontol 2002 Mar;73(3):322-333.
  15. Loss of osseointegration caused by occlusal load of oral implant. A clinical and radiographic study in monkeys. Clin Oral Implants Res 1996 Jun;7(2):143-152.
  16. Influence of the microgap in the periimplant hard and soft tissues: a histomorphometric study in dogs. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2002 Jul-Aug;17(4):467-472.
  17. Persistent acute inflammation at the implant-abutment interface. J Dent Res 2003 Mar;82(3):232-237.
  18. Periimplant inflammation defined by the implant-abutment interface. J Dent Res 2006 May;85(5):473-478.
  19. Influence of the size of the microgap on crestal bone changes around titanium implants. A histometric evaluation of unloaded non-submerged implants in the canine mandible. J Periodontol 2001 Oct;72(1):1372-1383.
  20. Dimension of the periimplant mucosa. Biological width revisited. J Clin Periodontol 1996 Oct;23(1):971-973.
  21. Platform switching and marginal bone-level alterations: the results of a randomized-controlled trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2010 Jan;21(1):115-121.
  22. The interface between the mucosa and the implant. Periodontol 2000 1998 Jun;17:47– 54.
  23. Microbial leakage and marginal fit of the implant-abutment interface. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1997 Jul-Aug;12(4):527-540.
  24. An in vitro pilot study of abutment stability during loading in new and fatigue-loaded conical dental implants using synchrotronbased radiography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2013 Jan-Feb;28(1):44-50.
  25. Platform switching for marginal bone preservation around dental implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Periodontol 2010 Oct;81(10):1350-1366.
  26. Biologic width around titanium implants. A histometric analysis of the implanto-gingival junction around unloaded and loaded nonsubmerged implants in the canine mandible. J Periodontol 1997 Feb;68(2):186-198.
  27. Biologic width around titanium implants. A histometric analysis of the implanto-gingival junction around unloaded and loaded nonsubmerged implants in the canine mandible. J Periodontol 1997 Feb;68(2):186-198.
  28. Soft tissues around long-term platform switching implant restorations: a histological human evaluation. Preliminary results. J Clin Periodontol 2011 Jan;38(1):86-94.
  29. Influence of the size of the microgap on crestal bone changes around titanium implants. A histometric evaluation of unloaded non-submerged implants in the canine mandible. J Periodontol 2001 Oct;72(10):1372-1383.
  30. Influence of the size of the microgap on crestal bone levels in non-submerged dental implants: a radiographic study in the canine mandible. J Periodontol 2002 Oct;73(1):1111-1117.
  31. The mucosal barrier following abutment dis/reconnection. An experimental study in dogs. J Clin Periodontol 1997 Aug;24(8):568-572.
  32. Tissue reactions to abutment shift: an experimental study in dogs. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2003;5(2):82-88.
  33. Influence of a machined collar on crestal bone changes around titanium implants: a histometric study in the canine mandible. J Periodontol 2011 Sep;82(9):1329-1338.
  34. Implants and components: entering the new millennium. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000 Jan-Feb;15(1):76-94.
  35. The evolution and evaluation of two interference-fit implant interfaces. Postgraduate Dent 1996;2:1-15.
  36. Impact of implant-abutment connection, positioning of the machined collar/microgap, and platform switching on crestal bone level changes. Camlog Foundation Consensus Report. Clin Oral Implants Res 2014 Nov;25(11):1301-1303.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.