Effect of abutment height on interproximal implant bone level in the early healing: A randomized clinical trial

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this randomized clinical trial was to compare the effect on the interproximal implant bone loss (IBL) of two different heights (1 and 3 mm) of definitive abutments placed at bone level implants with a platform switched design. Material and methods:Twenty-two patients received forty-four implants (6.5-10 mm length and 3.5-4 mm diameter) to replace at least two adjacent missing teeth, one bridge set to each patient-two implants per bridge. Patients were randomly allocated, and two different abutment heights, 1 and 3 mm using only one abutment height per bridge, were used. Clinical and radiological measurements were performed at 3 and 6 months after surgery. Interproximal bone level changes were compared between treatment groups. The association between IBL and categorical variables (history of periodontitis, smoking, implant location, implant diameter, implant length, insertion torque, width of keratinized mucosa, bone density, gingival biotype and antagonist) was also performed.

Influence of titanium base, lithium disilicate restoration and vertical soft tissue thickness on bone stability around triangular‐shaped implants: A prospective clinical trial

“…have showed that monomers from resin cement can be detrimental to osteoblast‐like cells (Kraus et al., ). Several clinical studies, like Novoa et al., detected statistically significant more bone loss around 1‐mm‐height multiunit abutment, compared to 2.5 mm (Nóvoa et al., ) or 3.0 mm heights (Blanco et al., ). Similar results were presented by Galindo‐Moreno et al., revealing more bone loss if multiunit abutment was shorter than 2 mm (Galindo‐Moreno et al., ).…”

Peri‐implant marginal bone loss rate pre‐ and post‐loading: An exploratory analysis of associated factors

“…The lack of cases treated by experts in this population is another possible source of bias (Cushen & Turkyilmaz, ). Many implant‐related variables such as abutment height and implant surface (Blanco et al, ; Spinato, Bernardello, Sassatelli, & Zaffe, ) or soft‐tissue thickness (Suárez‐López del Amo et al, ), which have been related to bone loss, were not evaluated. While many known patient and implant‐level factors were explored, only a small set of the most influential variables were evaluated as explanatory variables.…”

Influence of abutment height and implant depth position on interproximal peri‐implant bone in sites with thin mucosa: A 1‐year randomized clinical trial

“…The study protocol was approved by the Ethics Investigation Committee of Galicia (2016‐593). A similar design as in our previous publication reporting the results on the early healing of implants placed at bone level and restored with different abutments height in locations with thick mucosa was done (Blanco et al, ).…”

“…The maintenance of the initially achieved peri‐implant bone level is a key factor for long‐term success and good aesthetic results in implant therapy, and therefore, the study of factors affecting marginal bone levels around implants has gained importance over the last few years (Blanco et al, , ; Molina, Sanz‐Sánchez, Martín, Blanco, & Sanz, ; Nóvoa et al, ).…”

“…Recent retrospective studies have observed significant effects of the prosthetic abutment on the interproximal peri‐implant bone level (Galindo‐Moreno et al, , ; Nóvoa et al, ). In a recently published randomized clinical trial was observed, when platform‐switching implants were placed at bone level in locations with thick mucosa (at least 3 mm) and restored with different abutment height, a greater interproximal bone resorption when a short abutment was used at 6 months of follow‐up (Blanco et al, ).…”