Soft tissue integration of different abutment surfaces: An experimental study with histological analysis

Abstract

Objective To evaluate whether abutment surface and surface bio‐activation have an effect on soft tissue morphogenesis. Materials and Methods 36 patients (36 implants) were included. Abutments were randomly divided into 4 groups (n = 9): Smooth Surface—MAChined (MAC), Ultrathin Threaded Microsurface (UTM), MAC Plasma of Argon activated (Plasma‐MAC), and UTM Plasma of Argon activated (Plasma‐UTM). After 2 months of healing, soft tissue samples were collected and prepared for histological analysis. The margin of the peri‐implant mucosa (PM), the apical extension of the barrier epithelium (aJE), and the apical location of the abutment (AM) were identified. Significances of differences among groups were tested by means of the Kruskal–Wallis test and between pairs of results by means of the Mann–Whitney test. Results The mean (SD) vertical dimension of the mucosa was 2.5mm (1.0), including a connective tissue portion (CTP) of 0.8mm (0.8) in the MAC group; 3.6mm (0.2) with a CTP of 1.6mm (0.4) in the Plasma‐MAC group; 3.2mm (1.0), with a CPT of 0.5mm (0.6) in the UTM; and 3.3mm (0.8), with a CPT of 0.9mm (0.7) in the Plasma‐UTM group. Statistically significant differences were observed in the aJE‐AM height and PM‐aJE profile among the four experimental groups (p = .042 and p = .039, respectively). The Mann–Whitney test indicated differences between the Plasma‐abutments and the untreated abutments both for PM‐AM (p = .025) and AjE‐AM (p = .021). The differences appeared more evident when the preoperative soft tissue thickness was ≤2mm. Conclusions Within its limits, the study demonstrated a favorable effect of the plasma treatment on the connective tissue portion tissues. Plasma‐MAC group highlighted the best performance. This behavior appeared strictly correlated with the soft tissue thickness.

Can Abutment with Novel Superlattice CrN/NbN Coatings Influence Peri-Implant Tissue Health and Implant Survival Rate Compared to Machined Abutment? 6-Month Results from a Multi-Center Split-Mouth Randomized Control Trial

“…In conclusion, data on the abutment characteristics from the literature is currently controversial and research on the abutment characteristics remains a current and open topic [49][50][51].…”

Influence of abutment macro‐ and micro‐geometry on morphologic and morphometric features of peri‐implant connective tissue

“…A similar histologic study aiming to study soft tissue integration with different abutment surfaces (Canullo, Penarrocha Oltra, et al, 2021) reported a power analysis conducted with the G*Power software (version 3.1.9.7) and revealed that 9 abutments would have produced a power of 96.7% of detecting a significant difference of standardized effect size (Cohen's d ) 1.76 with an alpha error set to 0.05. Thus, 30 abutments were included, 10 for each experimental group.…”

Effect of argon plasma abutment activation on soft tissue healing: RCT with histological assessment

“…The harvesting technique and abutment design were explained in the previous article. 32 In brief, a guide pin was attached to the abutment allowing a 5-mm diameter circular blade to cut apically to the interface with the implant. Thus, a 1.3 mm circumferential thickness of keratinized mucosa was excised together with the abutment, while the new smooth, 5-mm-wide healing abutment was screwed in place of the retrieved one.…”